I went through the night with Mike Mendoza last Saturday. No, it’s not a new man in my life – he’s the presenter of the most listened to night radio show.

LBC sent a car for me at half past midnight. Yep – even the Chair of Transport at the London Assembly has been known to give in to the motor car! And I was entirely grateful to do so on this occasion. Going out after midnight is an exciting but long ago forgotten experience.

It was a phone in. First up was what I thought of the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, David Davies, and his support for bringing back capital punishment.

I thought it was a clear sign that the temporary euphoria of getting rid of IDS was already evaporating to expose the real old-fashioned true nature of Tory politics. Hang ’em and flog ’em!

Next – did I think Simon Hughes should have replaced Susan Kramer as the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate?

Yes I did. Sue is a friend and was an absolutely fabulous candidate in 2000. But once Simon put his hat in the ring, it was clear to the party that he could actually win the Mayoral contest – not just do a good job.

North Southwark and Bermondsey have returned Simon as their MP six times. And I know why – door-knocking there for him in the 1997 election, every door that opened seemed to have a resident who would say “Oh yes – Simon. He’s a lovely boy! He ‘elped me grandmother. He ‘elped me husband when we was in trouble…” and so on. He is much loved there. He is charismatic and he has vision.

Did I think that the shenanigans between Mayor Livingstone and Labour Mayoral candidate Nicky Gavron were bringing the mayoralty into disrepute? Yes, I did. It’s not that long ago that Tony Blair virtually declared Livingstone the devil incarnate. Leopard and spots are the words that TB should remember.

Indeed, at the very moment of his possible readmission to his beloved Labour Party Mayor Livingstone has (as usual) metaphorically dropped his trousers in public to embarrass Blair by his anti-Bush pronouncements and actions. How can TB reconcile Labour policies – pro-Bush, pro-PPP – with the Mayor’s avowed opposition (an opposition in this case that I endorse)?

All the talk of letting Livingstone back into Labour is just a rather desperate and sordid power play – Labour are scared of seeing Nicky Gavron finish an embarrassing fourth and so will do any sort of deal to avoid that.

It’s just the sort of clever-boys fixing that turns people off politics. Livingstone’s position isn’t much better – why is he so keen to rejoin a party responsible for so many policies he says he deplores? Principles seem in short supply all round.

Now while we’re on Bush – questions and comments poured in. So: no I didn’t think it was an appropriate time for President Bush to be invited on a State Visit. It had an aura of triumphalism which, given the situation, left a nasty taste. Exit strategies may get our joint troops out in due course but what we leave behind is still in question. By the time you read this the visit will have come and gone, and I hope that Bush was able to hear the demonstrations – to understand at first hand the very real and deep feelings that run through all stratas of our society.

And there were questions on congestion charging, rickshaws and cabbies, policing and racism – and so on. It was the most fun I have had in media terms for ages, and who knows – if I ever get booted out of politics, I wouldn’t half fancy a radio show!

Almost thirty years ago, in my very early twenties (and yes – sadly you can work out my age from this) I was a witness to a brutal assault at Camden Lock Market.

I was a design and photography student and out photographing all human life for a college project.

There was a scuffle and the sound of glass breaking just near where I was standing. A man had smashed a bottle against a pole to break it and was threatening to “glass up” a man and his wife.

It became clear that the man with the bottle had tried to steal something out of the woman’s bag, and her husband had caught him and seen him off.

But the perpetrator had returned to attack them. It was a violent struggle – smashing into the stalls and spilling out, on to and up Camden High Road.

As I had my camera with me, I thought I would photograph what was happening as evidence for the police. I followed the fight up the road until the police arrived and offered myself as a witness, having seen the whole thing from start to finish.

Not unnaturally, the police asked for the film. To my horror, when I opened the camera, there was no film in it. A great photographer, I was not!

But I had still seen first hand the whole thing from start to finish, film or no film.

I had never been to court. I didn’t have a clue. It was a huge, cavernous room – formal, intimidating and an isolating and alien environment. I had never spoken in public and had no knowledge of court procedure.

The barrister for the defence made mincemeat of me. He said (to put it bluntly) that a girl who didn’t have the wit to put film in her camera was clearly an unreliable witness.

Now, the camera was borrowed from the college and should have been supplied with film ready, but did I open my mouth to defend myself? No.

Did I say – but I was still an eyewitness, I saw first hand the whole thing? No. I was so intimidated and scared and humiliated, I simply burst into to tears and was dismissed as a witness.

I don’t know the outcome of that trial. But it has haunted me down the years that I failed in my duty. And certainly, in the years following, I doubt whether I would have rushed forward the way I did then to give evidence and volunteer to be a witness.

So when I was invited to launch Haringey’s new witness service last week, I smiled a wry smile, and told them that story.

Currently the Crown Prosecution Service, because of refusal to give evidence or attend court by civilian witnesses, discontinues about one in five cases.

This new service will support witnesses, take them to the court to help familiarise them, give them the information they need to understand what will happen and then support them on the day. What a difference that would have made for me.

And how sensible. As a GLA Member of the Metropolitan Police Authority who sits on the performance review pane, I monitor the statistics on ‘judicial disposals’ as they are called.

I will watch those figures with great interest as the Witness Support program – along with its older sister Victim Support – fill the justice gap which has been neglected for so long.

In the end all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are wasting their time if criminals are not brought to justice and convicted. There’s a huge waste of resources going on when, even in cases where the police have identified the likely criminal and gathered good evidence, the case falls apart at the end because a witness does not want to appear or know what to do.

Only a fifth of the five million crimes recorded nationally by police every year end in a criminal being brought to justice. This new service should help raise that number.

Good luck and best wishes to all in the new service. It can be noted, however, that later in life, that I did not become a photographer!

Writing the day after the Brent East by-election – I’ve got to gloat!

It was a victory of momentous and portentous proportions for the Liberal Democrats. And a severe slap in the face for Ken in his old seat and for Tony (you can trust me) Blair.

The aftershocks are being felt deep in both Labour and Conservative enclaves – while both parties examine why they failed so badly.

It’s not rocket science. On the doorsteps in Brent, it was clear people were sick of being duped into going to war on false pretences, even those who supported the war.

The voters of Brent East showed quite emphatically that the electorate is fed up with lies, fed up with spin, fed up with broken promises, fed up with a government that hasn’t delivered on public services and fed up with a Labour council that can’t even clean the streets.

And as for the Conservatives – to lose even more of the vote, to go from second to third when you are supposed to be the official opposition in a by-election mid term of a Labour government, has to strike fear into Tory hearts.

IDS’s statement that winning Brent East was a bad strategy for the Lib Dems demonstrates why so many people in other parties hope he hangs on as leader.

Even at the GLA – even before the election – we knew that a win was on the cards. I have seen many displays of ill temper from Mayor Livingstone – but none as vituperative and inappropriate as his attack on the Lib Dems at Mayor’s Question Time on the morning of the Brent East by-election.

He used this opportunity to launch a tirade on us and our campaign. Of course, now we know why – he must have known that the writing was on the wall for his old parliamentary stomping ground.

He accused us of all sorts and predicted a LibDem majority because of ‘dirty’ tactics. A dirty tactic in Ken’s book is having the temerity to fight to win.

I did have one smidgen of sympathy for him the next day though – on polling day his article in the Guardian warned that the Tories might win Brent East. Now there’s a mayor who is in touch with what people are thinking!

Ken didn’t have much love for us before Brent East’s dramatic fall – now he hates us. He was truly nasty – and if you have never had the pleasure of seeing the Mayor in full flow, you would be shocked.

No more the cheeky chappy formerly so loved by London’s electorate. No more the loveable (not by me) oppositionist underdog fighting big nasty Tory Government/Labour Government. Here was the Mayor unmasked and unplugged.

It was the second time recently he had lost the plot and lost his rag. The first was at budget committee where he accused the Assembly Members of corruption and blackmail.

This accusation levied because of his anger that the Assembly was daring to do some polling of its own, with full cross party support, on a number of issues.

He claimed we should work together with him so as not to duplicate any questions. This is the Mayor who has refused to share information, carried out his own polling month in month out and refused us access to the questions on the grounds that it is private advice to the Mayor. Well – what’s sauce for the goose…

And he’s not one to let truth get in the way of a good rant. If you are a student of body language – you can always tell when he’s lost it. His lower lip trembles and curls resentfully.

What this augurs for the London elections for Mayor and Assembly next year is the stuff that dreams are made of. Simon Hughes certainly looked very happy at the count – and so he should.

Whilst the other parties make the best they can of black Thursday claiming that you can’t take anything from a by-election – it doesn’t wash. The elections next June 10 for Mayor, Assembly and Euro MEPs – Super Thursday as we Lib Dems have dubbed it – will be a real fight. And that’s good for London and good for politics.

Delight and disapproval: both greeted the arrival of the second Fame Academy show at Wittenhurst in Highgate at the top of Highgate West Hill

It is an amazing and huge house which is locked behind high walls and gates. Growing up as a child in Highgate, I always wondered who lived there. No one lives there now – and suddenly the precious peace and tranquillity of Highgate Village has been broken by the arrival, once again, of this phenomenally successful TV show.

As with any event that attracts people to it – be it Kenwood, Wimbledon or Fame Academy – there are issues for local residents. Parking, noise, disruption – not to mention in Fame Academy’s case, planning permission for this usage.

These are real issues – and the show needs to make sure it does behave itself if it wants to come back annually. The good news is that the village shopkeepers appear to be benefiting from the passing trade from the crew and others now based for the duration in Highgate.

That aside – I love Fame Academy. I’d like to pretend that I only watch it because my children make me, but to be truthful I am fan. I am hooked. Perhaps it’s because it stirs long ago forgotten desires to be a singer (never a possibility given my voice – so appalling that my kids used to beg me not to sing them to sleep) and a frustrated desire to be on the stage.

And the thrill and hope that out of this modern version of a talent show, we – the viewers – will see the birth of a truly great talent and have a voice through our public vote in having determined their success.

We watch their highs and lows – Louise who weeps because she keeps failing to get the public vote (although her face was a study when she finally did last Saturday), Barry who weeps because he has an identity crisis and can’t find the ‘Barryness of Barry’, the vaunting self-confidence of one of the boys still in there – whose talent is limited but whom the public vote keeps in – the breathtaking, angst ridden, mesmeric performance of Alex – and the antics of Peter who can murder any song, but who is undoubtedly a star.

On show night it is fascinating to see not only the bickering between the teachers critiquing the youngsters performance, but to see the youngsters stand there after singing their little hearts out, hope shining in their eyes, and hear that critique – often harsh – to see if they can take it and make it.

So what about a Political Academy? With the Mayoral, London Assembly and European elections bearing down upon us – and a public that doesn’t exactly rush to the polling booths – perhaps that’s what we need to get the voters to turn out next June?

Certainly the voting on the current vogue for TV talent shows gets a voter turn out to die for, not to mention the viewing figures on finals night. Perhaps we should pop the Mayoral candidates into a house to see how they perform? What would we examine? Speech making, policy ideas, spin, image, charisma, truthfulness, ability to entertain and singing? That would be a reality show and a half! I predict a Ken Livingstone v Simon Hughes final. I just hope that Simon can sing and that Ken would get marked down for extreme nasal tone.

And as I say to my children, who are totally embarrassed when I vote for my favourites each show night – if you don’t vote – you don’t have the right to complain about the result.

Tired and emotional describes the month of July as the political temperature rises and we all hang on desperately for the summer break. Mayor Livingstone has appeared particularly grumpy in the run up to the August recess. Whether this is due to sleepless nights courtesy of baby Tom or the impending electoral year ahead – who knows? But as we head into the August recess my last campaign of the current cycle at London Government has been to push up the agenda – and more particularly up the Mayor’s agenda and nose – the quite urgent need to act to help local cinemas.

We don’t always recognise that our choices are disappearing until it is too late. Now I am quite a fan of the free market – but not in all cases, and I can see choice disappearing from our local high streets. We are seeing our local post offices under threat as sub-post offices close because their profits are being cut by the Government’s change to the ways benefits are paid. If the Government takes the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading to allow supermarkets to dispense medicines we risk losing our local high street pharmacies too – another nail in our high street coffin. And of course the continual fight to keep our police stations open – or get them re-opened if they have closed – marches on. Our local cinemas are under threat too.

So – over the past few months, I have carried out a survey of all the cinemas in London – and the results show clearly that small, local cinemas are struggling to stay open. Now, I love my huge tub of sweet popcorn and the big block-buster films at Warner Village or O2 as much as the next person. No shame in that. But I also like to go locally to my cinema. Here in Hampstead, for example, the Everyman offers service and facilities quite different to the chains as do many of the independents. Both are valid. Both are needed.

But the results of my survey show that attendance figures are down in half of London’s smaller venues. The survey also pointed up concerns over community safety (‘problems around the tube station stop people coming’), funding (‘there is very little funding available for cinemas such as ours’) and high rates (‘I would like to expand the cinema … no idea where the money would come from … can’t lower the prices due to the rates being so high’).

But imagine Hampstead without the Everyman, Belsize Park and Islington without the Screen on the Hill and the Green and others across London. We need to make sure we support our cinemas – including the chains with local outlets too – or those too will disappear from our local high streets.

London is in danger of losing many of its local gems. Just last year we saw the closure of three in Catford, Greenwich and Kingston. And the loss of a local cinema can have serious consequences on a local economy. Cinemas don’t just provide entertainment. By drawing people into the high street they can provide many social and economic spin-offs. For example, as well as boosting the evening economy of a local high street, cinemas can help improve safety on the streets at night because of having more people around.

Without a local cinema – independent or chain – elderly people, those with disabilities and people without access to a car are denied the pleasure of visiting the cinema. Others simply prefer the ambience of a local cinema to an out-of-centre multiples and the diversity of film choice smaller, independent venues can provide.

I’ve sent the results to Mayor Livingstone to illustrate to him why he needs to do more to support the cinema industry. Thus far in his Cultural Strategy he has paid lip service to the importance of local cinema. His final strategy must go further and outline exactly how the GLA will work with cinemas, local authorities, local communities and other agencies to promote and support local cinemas. I have asked him to use his planning powers to protect the capital’s cinematic heritage and to lobby government for additional funding, particularly to improve access and to set up local educational programmes.

He has put a lot of effort and resources into attracting people to London’s theatres as a fundamental economic imperative to retain our attraction to tourists – well now he needs to expend the same effort ensuring that Londoners have the same attention and devotion lavished on us to preserve the choices that give us diversity in our ability to access culture – and popcorn!

Middle-aged, middle-class, white female – that’s me! Not a description I am particularly keen on – especially the middle-aged bit. But I guess that if a police officer was walking along the road and saw me – that would be his (his – because most police officers are still male) first impression.

If he then clocked the way I was dressed (reasonable smartly), my location (Hampstead High Street), added in local crime intelligence and his own experience – I doubt whether he would give me a second glance – let alone stop me and search me. Unless, of course, he had particular intelligence to stop all middle-aged, middle-class white females because one such had just robbed the local jewellers and that was the description of the perpetrator.

So: have I have never been stopped and searched because I have never committed a crime or because I just don’t look like the type of person who does? And who and how makes those judgements? What influences them?

If I was young, black, male and lived in Hackney, Tottenham or Brixton – would I have more chance of being stopped and searched – even though I had also never committed a crime? If I do – then that’s making assumptions based on race. Is that what is happening?

Or are the police right to see stop and search as a vital tool in their work to cut crime and make London safe and are they right to say that the decisions on who to stop are based on intelligence rather than racial profiling?

Despite the police’s staunch defence of this tactic, they – and the rest of us – actually know relatively little about what is really happening. What success rates do stop and searches have? What is success? Fairly basic questions – but ones that haven’t been quantified or analysed successfully to date.

At the heart of the issue are two hot potatoes: is racial discrimination dictating who gets stopped and who gets searched? Or is race a guide to who should be stopped and searched?

Scary questions! That’s the minefield that the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) are stepping into with a scrutiny investigation into stop and search, for which I am the vice-chair.

But it’s a minefield that needs clearing for all our sakes. The relationship between a community and the force that polices it is critical to all our well-being.

Many communities in London are incensed at what they see as a stop and search policy that is rooted in racial discrimination. A lot of work has been done since the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence and the McPherson Report. But stop and search is still causing widespread anger and resentment. Yet if it really is the critical tool the Met’s says it is – then we need to examine and expose all of the issues to inform the way forward.

We have had the first evidence session with senior officers from the Met. The real shock to me of that first witness session was how ad hoc it all seems. The IT systems of the Met seem not to have been able to deal with recording appropriate data and therefore there are huge gaps in the information that is needed to make judgements.

I have no doubt that as we progress through the next few months of this scrutiny more will be revealed – and it is important that it is – as we examine the truth behind stop and search.

The only thing missing was the stamping of little angry feet and the throwing of toys out the pram as British Airways and Virgin Airlines delivered an economic doomsday scenario, should the Government have the temerity to refuse them a third runway at Heathrow Airport. (Technically, there are actually three already – so it’s a very clever ruse to call your application for a fourth runway ‘runway number three’).

If they didn’t get their ‘third’ runway – the world as we knew it, would end. They would not accept such a decision and even threatened to up sticks to the continent!

This bravura demonstration of ‘Heathrow or bust’ spoke volumes about where the big airlines’ real interest lies: in making money and not necessarily in making London or the country a better place.

And if you think it doesn’t affect you because you’re sitting in another part of London and not one of the poor b*****s in the south-west of London, don’t relax: who knows, there could be a stack near you! Even in Muswell Hill, well away from Heathrow in North London, complaints about noise from planes circling overhead has been a regular feature of my casework postbag over the years.

The big boys had come in to give evidence to the London Assembly’s Transport Committee, which is about to respond to the Government’s consultation on the provision of more air transport capacity in the south east of England.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with our airlines wanting to be profitable. I want them to be profitable – but it was pretty clear from the evidence they gave that Virgin and British Airways had perhaps not put their heart and soul into looking into alternatives. They seem to have their heart set on Heathrow, and that was largely that.

But the committee thinks otherwise. The congestion around Heathrow, both on the ground and in the skies, is overwhelming. Overcrowded skies cause noise problems and exacerbate the risk of delays to flight. And despite absolute denials of any risk to safety whatsoever, so many more planes flying around in the sky over one airport worries me.

Moreover, the transport infrastructure on the ground is already creaking and the roads so crowded that Mayor Livingstone is looking to bring in congestion charging around the airport.

On another tack, there is only about two per cent unemployment in the area that serves Heathrow. The economy is over-heating in west London and part of the airlines’ case for a third runway is the provision of 45,000 new jobs. Well – who’s going to do them? And the economic benefits that they all say would accrue from expansion at Heathrow might be of much more benefit in other areas of London. What regeneration potential there is should be better distributed.

Anyway, it will all end in tears. We can’t just go on this predict-and-provide model for the future. Air transport capacity needs to be managed and monitored – or the South East will be one big, polluted, noisy retail opportunity for others passing through our airports and our skies.

What the Assembly will be considering in its response to the Government is not simply the airlines’ bottom line but the real needs of London. Matching the economic benefits with environmental issues, regeneration and managing demand: that is the judgement of Solomon that is required but necessary for London’s future.

And please, please, please – save us from another interminable enquiry, the findings of which everyone knows from the outset. Terminal 5 was always going to be built. Ironically, during their evidence to that inquiry, BAA said there would be no need for a third runway in the future. Before the ink was dry on the determination, the first media spins for the third runway at Heathrow were being bowled.

The Government needs to listen to the airlines – but it doesn’t need to do what they say. After all, the last time the airline and airport industry promised doomsday over a major policy issue – over the changes in duty free rules – the day duly arrived, but there was no doom.

Prim but not proper – that’s what the Mayor called me at the London Assembly’s Transport Committee. In fact he went off on a rant because he didn’t like the questions I asked him. He hadn’t liked my questions at the previous Mayor’s Question time either.

Recently, I have concluded that the Mayor of London is right off me. Given our mutual support for congestion charging and opposition to Labour’s hated, expensive and imposed sell off of the tube (PPP) why is he spurning me now?

The questions he seems to really hate are the ones I ask him about his failure to deliver on promises or, even more, on how he intends to improve the tube.

He has had successes – congestion charging and some bus improvements (but with the notable omission and outrageous delay on delivering the Muswell Hill to Swiss Cottage bus route which he supported so enthusiastically when seeking office last time out).

But it is actually the job of the Assembly to scrutinise the Mayor. Inevitably this means looking for what is going badly rather than singing his praises. No prizes for guessing which of those he prefers.

The Assembly has been very strategic and somewhat prescient on the tube issue. Over the last 18 months, we examined and established what standards of service Londoners should reasonably be able to expect on the tube.

The idea being that – whilst undoubtedly stuffed by the contracted standards in the PPP – the Mayor of London must have more to his tube policy than simply reciting “It’s not my fault”.

He needs to move forward to try and improve on the poor standards we have been stuck with. London simply could not have a Mayor who says that’s it – there’s nothing I can do!

Research (sadly desk bound rather than in person!) into comparable cities around the world enabled us to set reasonable standards.

Without boring you to death, an example of one such benchmark would be the space standard. What everyone hates on the tube (except perverts) is being pressed closer than we ever wished to the next person.

The standard we have set is 0.25 square metres per person at peak hours (the same as Paris). That means that there should be no more than 4 people sharing a square metre of space. On a bad day, I am still sharing my square metre with about 8 others – so way to go.

These standards are clearly not going to be delivered by the current PPP. In fact the report is called: ‘Mind the Gap – the difference between what Londoners want and what Londoners will get’.

Work is going on as I write to establish how far PPP goes towards delivering the standards the Assembly has set.

I have had meetings in the last few weeks with the Chief Exec of Tube Lines (the private consortium now in charge of the infrastructure on the Northern, Jubilee and Piccadilly lines) and with Bob Kiley, Transport Commissioner for London.

Neither of them dropped dead with horror at thought that the Assembly wants to find ways to improve on the dreadfully low standards the Government put into the PPP contracts.

There could be ways to negotiate within the existing contracts. For example if a way could be found to do maintenance and improvement work on the track and signals round-the-clock, money could be saved and used towards improvements over and above the contracts.

Should, perhaps, part of a tube line be closed completely for a few weeks to allow an intensive burst of refurbishment rather than trying to squeeze the work in during those few hours when no tube trains are running – and so stringing it out over a long time at high cost?

There is a long way to go. Tube Lines have agreed to come to the Transport Committee (of which I am chair again) and we will explore ways forward.

Bob Kiley and Tim O’Toole, the new kid on the Transport for London block brought in to manage the tube, will be trying – as soon as the Government hands over the tube – to begin to make the improvements in management that are actually possible and achievable.

So come on Ken. We know what a bad deal for London the PPP is. It’s no use shouting at me ‘cos the standards are hard to achieve. Your job as Mayor for London is to push, push, push to achieve better than Labour lumbered you with.

I went through Heathrow’s portals last weekend without a face mask. I had struggled as to which was the lesser of two evils? To look like a complete prat as the only person walking through Heathrow Airport with an anti-infection mask over my face or risk catching Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome?

I am not overly neurotic about health issues – but the burgeoning numbers of SARS victims potentially winging their way across the world over the Easter holidays may give those of us trucking through airports during the holiday season a moment or two’s pause for thought.

The Deputy Director of Public Health for London, Penny Bevan, was invited to come before the Health Committee of the Assembly (on which I sit) last week to make a statement as to the current London situation vis a vis SARS and to allow us to question her on behalf of London. She reassured us that all that needed to be done was being done. Britain was safe. London was safe. No need to worry!!!!!

The good news was that she was virtually sure it could only be spread by sneezing – and possibly coughing. Simply breathing in the same air with a SARS victim would not be enough to transmit it. Or more accurately – as only family members and health staff had apparently contracted the disease from victims thus far, it implied that you had to be close enough to be sneezed on in order to contract the illness. Whew!

The next bit of good news was that whilst there had been 5 cases in England (at time of writing 6) there had been no onward transmission! We all felt a lot better at this point – and whilst they hadn’t got a cure or a vaccine, and it was a virus not an infection and it was not totally under control yet in Hong Kong and China – it was under control here!

The key piece of advice as given out by the Foreign Office to the nation was not to go to Hong Kong and China. But measures were being taken. People leaving the infected areas at the port of exit are being tested for SARS. All air passengers, for example, are having a temperature strip placed across their brow – and if fevered they are not allowed to leave. Great so far. We are also alright if someone’s symptoms started in flight – because international laws governing air travel meant that the pilot can then notify ahead that a ‘communicable’ disease is on board the plane and arrangements made for isolation of patient on landing and monitoring of other passengers.

The real hazard would be if there were no symptoms before or during – but only developing anything up to ten days after landing. Then the hazard was people themselves. They must not go to their doctor’s surgeries. They must not go their local hospital emergency rooms. They must call their GP.

And how were they to know this? People would have to find this out by looking on the Department of Health website or ring NHS Direct. And how were they to know this was where they needed to look? You guessed it! By looking on the Department of Health website or ringing NHS Direct.

Given that dissemination of information was absolutely key to stopping the spread of SARS early – did the Deputy Director of Public Health not think it might be a good idea to distribute leaflets on all flights informing passengers what to do if they were to contract symptoms after?

No – she didn’t believe that there had been any discussion or thought about disseminating information in this way. It was not current government policy and one generally left the airlines and the commercial imperative to deal with these things.

Did she think it might be a good idea? Could she reassure us and London on this point? Yes – she now thought it might be an idea and she would now mention it to the Foreign Office and the Department of Health and see if information might be given out during flights.

So – that was my effort at stopping the spread of SARS. I doubt whether they will have got it together to get information out to air travellers by this weekend – but if you are on a plane and you do get a leaflet informing you what the symptoms are, what and who and how to contact someone – it will be thanks to the London Assembly.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens, is keeping a close eye on me. So he whispered in my ear, having followed me to a table in the corner of the room when I went to get a cup of coffee during a recent meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).

Trouble is – he was only half joking! So what was my crime?

The MPA, which is part of the GLA family and of which I am a member, holds the Metropolitan Police Force to account. As an MPA member, I monitor performance – and as I am Lead Member for response – naturally take a special interest in ‘response’ or indeed lack of it.

So, I had carried out an experiment. I got my ‘team’ at the GLA to telephone all the local police stations in London to see how long they took to answer – if at all.

Now whether or not you can get through to the police when you want to may not be as sexy a subject as gun crime, counter-terrorism or human trafficking – but many more people complain to me about not being able to reach the police than they do about anything else.

They report that they almost never can find police on the beat. Police stations and front counters have often closed and often no one answers when you try to phone your local station. Well – that is the anecdotal evidence people are always giving me when I go to local neighbourhood watch meetings.

So, having telephoned 132 stations – an outrageous 40% didn’t answer. We allowed 100 rings before we hung up. 100 rings take 6 minutes 36 seconds – a very long time. The 40% who didn’t answer at all either cut off at their end, were timed out at a 100 rings by us – or simply clicked onto an answerphone.

The experiment was well documented and thorough – so I put the results of this survey onto the agenda for the MPA meeting. The report was well-received by MPA members and will now feed into a review on managing demand.

But the Deputy Commissioner’s response was to say that MPA members had to make our minds up whether we wanted police on the beat or the ‘phone answered. Call me ambitious – but I think both are not beyond the ability of mankind – or even the Met.

I wrote to every borough commander with the results from their borough, asking them to explain what they thought had led to their poor result or what they had done well when they had a good result.

Before you could say ‘John Stevens’, I was contacted by the Met saying that they didn’t want local commanders to answer my letter – they wanted to give a ‘corporate’ response. I explained that the whole point was not to get a carefully worked out ‘corporate’ response, but rather to get through to the reality of what was – or wasn’t – working locally, on the ground where people come into contact with the police and feed that into the review too. This ‘discussion’ is ongoing as I write …

But whenever I feel Sir John’s eyes boring into my metaphysical back, I think of the local resident of Highgate, who ‘phoned me only this week to say that she had been totally unable to contact the police when she had her purse stolen. The front counter of a nearby police station had closed three years ago. Her local police station (Highgate) had closed completely and no longer even functioned as a police station. There were no police around. She tried ringing – but no one answered. She would have had to take two buses to get to an open police station.

Should it really be so hard to contact the police?