I’m hot foot off the plane from New York, and it’s official, Bob Kiley, London’s new Transport Commissioner, heralded by Ken Livingstone as the Saviour of the Western World, does not walk on water. But he comes pretty close.

Four members of the London Assembly went to New York to discover the truth about bonds, safety, service and about Bob Kiley.

Whoever I talked to over there, whether it was the user groups, the transport operators, the authorities, the politicians, the unions or the academics – they universally agreed that Kiley was a good thing. It’s no mean feat to be praised by such a wide range of people. It is clear that under his reign at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) – which runs transport in New York – the disastrous state of the subway was turned around.

However, not all the praise heaped on him is quite true. Two common myths have grown up over here. One is that under him not a single day of industrial action took place. The other is that he was virtually single-handedly responsible for the idea of issuing bonds to raise capital. These turned out to be only true-ish.

In speaking to The Transport Workers Union of America, it was clear that a great deal of the explanation for there being no strikes during the changes that took place was more to do with the State’s punitive laws against strikes than to Kiley himself. For example, the leaders of such a strike could lose their homes and for every day’s strike action, an employee would lose two days pay.

However, in talking about working with Kiley, the unions gave great credit to him as someone who was absolutely fair. He was someone they could do business with. This is a skill that will undoubtedly be needed in the months ahead.

On bonds themselves – long a Liberal Democrat policy – it was in fact Kiley’s predecessor at MTA, who initiated the first bond issue. Kiley did, though, subsequently use bonds to great effect.

It also became clear to me during the trip that he had real talent in two further key areas. Firstly, as a ‘manager’. Universally, the key players acknowledged his skills in this area. Secondly, they referred to his ability to spend money well. Together with Kiley’s ability to get on and do business with all players, it is these skills that have given him such a formidable reputation and that will be absolutely vital in the transformation of our crumbling Tube into a world-class system.

In terms of finance, raising funding for capital transport programs through bond issues in New York, and throughout the USA for that matter, is clearly as simple as falling off a log over there. They cannot understand why we don’t. That is how you raise money in the States outside of taxes. End of story.

It is also, incidentally, how they also do things in France. As recently as late January, a bonds issue was used to raise money for the French railway system. Looking at the French railways, the New York subway and then the mess that passes for public transport in Britain, it looks like they’ve got something right doesn’t it?

The Americans I talked to just couldn’t see a problem with bonds and clearly think we are mad over here not to use them. The people in New York who have used bonds to fund everything from the renovation of Grand Central to the new airport transit link are convinced they are a sensible way of funding projects – and they have the practical experience to back this up.

Bonds for our Tube would make sense in every way, with value for money and leaving the Tube with a unified management structure. There is a problem, however, for the Treasury. If Ken gets to raise finance through bonds for the tube, what else might he be able to fund this way? And what if other public bodies started to raise money in this way. If bond issue becomes a way of financing big projects, the Treasury loses some control over what happens or does not happen. And if the Treasury begins to lose fiscal control, ultimately that means a loss of political control. Therein lies the rub.

Even on financial grounds, Labour’s case for its privatisation plans for the Tube is very weak. However, there is also the matter of safety. Labour’s PPP would split operations from infrastructure. The history of this on our railways is hardly a happy one.

On the tube, we would get chaos just like when every road gets dug up at the same time and the traffic comes to a halt. But, what happens when one of the companies misses its deadlines or something goes wrong? Who takes the blame and who pays the other companies for delays and costs?The fights will be fierce, with endless delays and a bonanza for the lawyers, who will be paid large sums that would be better spent on improving the Tube. Some of my best friends are lawyers and management consultants, but should we really be spending quite so much money on them rather than on the Tube itself?

The need for unified management lies at the heart of the difficulties currently straining relationships in the so-called renegotiations between Kiley and the Government. The PPP funding mechanism means that control will not be unified by definition. There certainly would be a structure in which liability is clear. We would know who has to pay compensation if something goes wrong. But by then it’s too late. What London needs is a structure that prevents things going wrong in the first place rather than a structure that defines who pays compensation when it has gone wrong.

What I heard in New York from the operators and the authorities was that they felt that it made no sense and indeed was dangerous if you don’t have unified management. Transport remains unified and in the public sector in New York under the MTA New York City Transit. The Boston academics who briefed us at the Centre for Transportation Studies at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) took a look at these issues not only across America, but across the world, where both privatisation and public sector transport systems have had varying degrees of failure or success.

They cited a case where 7 tube lines were sold to 7 separate consortia. Whilst this overcame the problems of splitting infrastructure from operations as each line was taken over in its entirety, the seven could not agree on pricing, interchange or co-ordinate when closure for repair was needed. Guess who lost out? From the examples they gave us, it was clear that what succeeded in the short-term often gave way to long-term service decline and ultimate requirement to change once again. Outside of the safety issue, the safeguard against failure was good management and active and sound fiscal control.

So – with a bond issue and a unified structure, what do New Yorkers get bangs for bucks? Not everything in the New York tube garden is lovely. The basic fabric of their subway system is physically quite brutal. They laugh at the idea that we have upholstery on our seats and Rosemary Scanlon, author of London / New York – an economic study of the two cities – said, ‘our system will never be as pretty as yours’. She’s right. All their rolling stock, old and new, is far more utilitarian than ours is. In fact it makes ours look not only pretty but also comfortable by comparison. This isn’t a thought I had previously associated with the Northern Line – pretty and comfortable!

Not only does New York have hard plastic seats, but also a much lower grade of finish on everything and, whilst the graffiti has gone from the body of the subway, the windows are now covered with the etched equivalent of graffiti – scratching. Standing on the platforms, I was suddenly aware how clear the visibility the length of our London platforms is compared with New York. The platforms there are riddled with structural columns, obscuring a clear view. It is utilitarian and still quite user-hostile.

The signing is confusing. Of course, we do have world-acclaimed graphics for our tube both in identity and information. In New York there are very few stations that have information boards letting you know which train is comin
g and how long it will be. In fact although I travelled the subway all the time, I never saw one. We here are used to having that facility, and you sure miss it when it isn’t there. They will however be introducing such a system-wide in due course.

On the other hand, except for the Sunday, in Manhattan and one journey back from Brooklyn, I never had to wait more than a few moments for a train during daytime hours – so perhaps the need to know or to keep me informed so that I didn’t fret was less.

New York is clearly a work in progress, but the state it was in the 1970s was clearly far worse than our current state and the struggle continues on bring in a decent standard throughout the system. In its worst period, something like one out of every two trains was having to be taken out of service for one reason or another, fires on the lines every day, and so on. Our catastrophe waiting to happen is overcrowding and the exacerbation of the failure rate – spiralling to disaster. A tube train every 90 seconds would solve the immediate problems here in London. Let’s get the infrastructure sorted. Tarting up operations should be secondary – although important in the long run.

New York runs a 24-hour service with night trains every 20 minutes. This timing means that these trains right through the night are full, and therefore the numbers of people using them enhances safety. We need to assess our own requirements if we are looking to provide a 24-hour service. We also need to understand that the program we will embark on will be long term and will mean lines out of operation during the renovation period – so transport alternatives need planning. We also need to understand the length of time this will all take.

Where New York transport is weak is on long-term planning for capacity to cope with forecast growth. The other glaring fault line is the lack of integration between the different bodies who control New York. There is no single overarching body as we now have in London which links planning, economic development and transport – let alone paying heed to overarching themes of sustainability, equalities and health as enshrined in the Act for the Greater London Authority.

So in the tale of two cities, what can I bring back from New York to London? Obviously, a deeper and wider knowledge of our soon to be sister city, a city whose economy, populations and life patterns are so similar to our own. All of us on the trip gained knowledge about transport modes as well as some very specific and real ideas on design, accessibility, customer service, and perhaps on how to work with a ‘strong mayor’ model in perhaps a more constructive way than New York’s Mayor and City Council.

Our report will be ready in a month and come to the Transport Policy Committee that I chair.

The Transport Policy Committee’s major investigation into ‘Funding, Safety and Service Issues on the London Tube’ will come after the general election. But in the meantime, voters in London will have the chance to cast their own verdict on Labour’s privatisation plans. We’ve already had four wasted years with little to show for it other than Minister for London Keith Hill’s energetic letter writing to the Evening Standard defending privatisation. It’s about time Kiley was allowed to get on and do for London what he did for New York.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

Standing in the middle of the West End at midnight on a Saturday night,armed with a large video camera and a ‘minder’ I thought ‘why am I doingthis?

Good question! It had seemed like a good idea at the time – to dump theTransport Committee of the London Assembly in the centre of London late atnight and make our way home by public transport. This was to be the firstpart of our scrutiny ‘Nightime Travel – Safe Routes Home’ to demonstratesome of the difficulties of late night travel in our capital city. For me,personally, I wanted to show the barriers that exist for women. If we wantpeople to use public transport then it not only has to be safe, but also tofeel safe. And, of course, the walk home from your public transportdestination is as important a part of the journey as public transportitself.

Anyway, we met up in Covent Garden. There were five of us Assembly members,and between us we were taking different routes home across London. Three ofus took video cameras to record our journeys, one a small tape recorder andthe other was going to make notes.

I had had a brief training session on the camera a week before. We are nottalking neat little, cute little video cam. This was a big camera. I had tofilm myself for the talk to the camera pieces, and my arm was barely longenough to turn the camera around and hold it at arms length. At the practicesession, watching the piece, I seemed to have mastered the up ones ownnostril shot.

My journey home was simple. I wasn’t looking to create difficulties, just toshow the real ones that put women off travelling alone on public transportat night. All I had to do was get on the tube at Leicester Square and offagain at Highgate and walk home. In fact I had a ‘minder’ accompanying me -though I think that had more to do with protecting the camera than myself!However, I was grateful for Brian’s presence as drunken, but happy youths,performed and loomed at me at the sight of the camera. Tomorrow’s Popstarsthey were not.

The first step on my journey was the descent into hell at Leicester Squaretube. It is literally heaving with the late night crowds trying to maketheir way home. Onto the elevator and along the tunnel. The crowd slows onthe corner leading to the stairs down to the Northern Line platform. Thecrowds are so thick on the platform, the stairs can’t clear. I strugglealong and squeeze through the people, along the platform until there is alittle more freedom. Looking at the information board to see whether thenext train is Edgware or High Barnet. Of course, the board is not working.

I take a High Barnet and get off at Goodge Street, just to experience adifferent station at night. This platform, unlike Leicester Square, iscompletely deserted, just me and my minder and a pair of legs sticking outat the other end of the platform. Presumably, there was a person attached tothem, but all I could see were legs. An empty platform is intimidating in adifferent way.

Got on an Edgware train, off at Camden Town to take the Barnet Train andhome. Miscellaneous drunks youngsters and people eating made up much of mytravelling footage. I had been expecting, as almost always happens when Itravel for real on a weekend late night journey, piles of vomit. But sod’slaw defeated me on my scrutiny voyage and there had been no vomit in sight.

Arriving at Highgate, I stopped momentarily to put a new battery into thecamera, when my Oscar opportunity arrived. Three young guys came walkingalong the platform. Well, to be fair, the middle one was being draggedalong, as he had obviously had an extremely good night out and was blinddrunk. Just as he went past me, his trousers fell down. Then he fell down.My film director’s instincts took over, and I look forward to seeing thefootage.

As I walked up to Highgate Village from the tube, I think anyone womenwatching the video would identify with my journey: the darkness, theloneliness of being the only person on the street, the nervousness whensuddenly someone is coming towards you, the relief when they pass. And thenI was home. I did a quick ‘Blair Witch’ to the camera, holding a torch undermy chin, with Brian now filming and said good night.

The scrutiny will continue with two hearings: one with user groups and theother with the transport providers and possibly the police. My route homewas safe this time, but it isn’t welcoming. The challenge now is to find thesolutions.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

Not being vegetarian, I’ve often felt uneasy as the BSE and CJD scandalshave unfolded, wondering what I might have eaten in the past.

But I’m lucky.

Imagine having to stick out your arm virtually every day to take aninjection that might be contaminated with CJD.

That’s just what haemophiliacs in London over the age of 16 have to do whengiving themselves Factor 8 blood clotting treatment.

The story hit the papers again last week because it has been confirmed thatseveral batches of Factor 8 have come from blood donated by a man who diedof variant CJD. These batches of Factor 8 went on to be used by a number ofhaemophiliacs.

Of course, the Labour government, just like the Tories before them over BSE,repeatedly states that there is no evidence that CJD can be transmittedthrough blood. Sound familiar? We’ve been here before. Remember the repeatedstatements that there was no evidence that humans could contract a humanform of BSE through the food chain? But it happened.

The simple truth is that we don’t know for sure what the risks are. Thescientists aren’t to blame – they are working hard to figure out how CJDworks, what causes it and what makes it spread.

But in the meantime, haemophiliacs are forced to treat themselves withmedicine that may in fact give them CJD. Faced with this dire situation,some haemophiliacs are simply refusing treatment, preferring to carry onbleeding rather than take such a horrifying risk.

These risks, though, do not need to be run. There is a safe, syntheticversion of Factor 8 available. It is given freely to every singlehaemophiliac in Scotland and Wales. In fact, even if you are Scottish orWelsh living in England you will get the safe version, but English adultscannot.

To receive the safe treatment in England, you have to be under 16 anduninfected by HIV or Hepatitis C which you would have already got throughearlier Factor 8. If you are older or you have already been infected witheither of those two diseases, you are not eligible for safe treatment. Theidea that because you’ve been infected with Hepatitis C it is ok to make yourun the risk of further infections is distasteful.

I first found out about this issue because a close relative of mine hashaemophilia. I have witnessed first hand the psychological torture of havingto have a treatment that though it may save you from bleeding, may also giveyou something far, far worse.

Of course the political problem is that there aren’t many haemophiliacs innumerical terms – so there’s not a lot of votes in this one. And we knowthat the Government only listens when it has a big gun to its head – thewelcome but partial climb-down last week on the proposed tube privatisationfor one.

But in the run up to a General Election, Governments, strangely enough,develop much better hearing. So I hope they are listening on this one. I’mdoing my best on the GLA to make them listen, but we need to put greaterpressure on the Department of Health. If you’d like to help make themlisten, please write to Lord Hunt, Department of Health, Richmond House, 79Whitehall, London, SW1A 2NS. I would be grateful for a copy of any repliesyou receive.

Lord Philips, who chaired the official inquiry into BSE, concluded that wemust make sure “precautionary measures can be taken to protect human healthin a situation of uncertainty.”

Well, the precautionary measures are available. They’re already in use inScotland and Wales and for children. Don’t adults in England deserve thesame?

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

So the panic that is Xmas has come and gone. My own personal miracle ofChristmas happened again, thank goodness, as it does every year. Despite theseeming improbability just a week before, there was food in the house, therewere presents under the tree and I even managed to tidy up most of the pilesof things lying around my house which I had always meant to clear away.

London, silenced only for a moment from the dominant hum of big city life,has already sprung back to life with the sales, business and entertainment.London’s lifeblood, its people, are already returning to their everydaylives.And I guess that’s what makes me optimistic about the future – thesheer force of life that is London.

As it creaks back into life – however ground down it sometimes seems;however dreadful the transport system, however few police there are on ourstreets, however dirty it sometimes seems, however unfair its distributionof wealth – London is a survivor and so are its people.

It’s the birthplace of more creativity and talent than almost anywhere elsein the world. A stunning World City straddling the great River Thames, withboth history and modernity competing for air. It’s no wonder that SamuelJohnson penned the famous lines, “when a man is tired of London, he is tiredof life; for there is in London all that life can afford.”

But life for many is a very real struggle. That’s the great challenge forthose now running London. So much of London has been damned, not only bychronic lack of investment over the years by central government, but by lackof vision, lack of ideas, lack of direction and lack of someone to watchover her. But now London does have someone to watch over her and her great,thriving diversity – the new Mayor and London Assembly.

I am extremely optimistic that it will all change for the better. Irecognise that some changes – such as a sensible congestion chargingscheme – will be controversial. But it is the failure of shortsightedpoliticians in the past to get to grips with these issues that have burdenedLondon with so many problems. Just letting London’s transport problems dragon will only make matters even worse. So be warned!

Change is difficult. It is always resisted. But it is what London needs. Soas 2001 comes in at midnight on Sunday, I will thank my lucky stars that Ihave the opportunity to work to achieve those improvements.

And as New Year resolutions are of the moment, as well as helping sortLondon’s problems, as always, I will resolve to lose weight, take moreexercise, be nicer to my children – and of course – give Ken Livingstone ahard time.

Happy New Year!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000

Ken Livingstone lost it completely in the last Mayor’s Question Time. Putunder what I thought was relatively mild pressure by a very basic questionover his plans for the proposed New Year’s Eve party Ken lost the plot, thenlost his rag – and then lost it altogether.

I was surprised because, apart from having an a tough time during theCongestion Charging scrutiny which I chaired, he has until now consistentlykept up the cheeky chappy act, – whether attacking the government over itsplans to privatise the tube (quite rightly), planning the demise of pigeonsin Trafalgar Square (quite rightly), championing the Euro (quite rightly) orbatting away questions at Mayor’s Question Time (Assembly must do better atputting him on the spot next time).

Ken’s explosion in the Assembly was quickly followed by a strong reluctanceto attend an evidence session of my scrutiny of the Mayor’s Draft TransportStrategy – the early blueprint for all of transport and traffic plans forLondon. In the event, he did attend to answer the panel’s questions. Thenature of this line by line scrutiny is to find the weaknesses so that theMayor can take on board the advice we give and amend the document, before itgoes out to public consultation in January.

During the session, when questioned over why there were no targets fortraffic reduction, the Mayor admitted that there would not be a reduction -there would be a reduction in traffic growth – but still an overallincrease. I pointed out to him that in his manifesto he had promised toreduce actual traffic by 15%. And then he said basically that manifestosdidn’t matter because you made lots of promises in them and they had nolegal basis. Well – it’s true that they don’t have a legal basis – but I dothink it’s a bit of an expectation between the people and the person thatthey elect that they will at least make a decent effort to keep theirpromises. Not surprisingly – that news was all over the front page of theStandard. And I don’t suppose Ken was very happy about that!

This was shortly followed by the announcement that the Mayor had cancelledthe London Summit (major event) and was cancelling everything to concentrateon the tube/privatisation issue. It’s a key issue in London – so I am gladhe is going to focus all his energy on that. Labour’s plans to privatise ourtube system will be a disaster. Sadly, Labour doesn’t seem to have learntanything from the mess the Tories made of privatising our railways – nordoes Labour seem willing to head the warnings of tragedies such as theHatfield crash. The only thing rarer at the moment than a train running ontime is a transport expert who hasn’t come out against Labour’sprivatisation plans. Expert after expert has condemned the plans, but whywon’t Labour listen?

I also wonder about Ken. The pressure is enormous. Peoples’ expectations areenormous. The structure of the Mayor and Assembly is such that whatever hedoes must face scrutiny. And when he’s under close scrutiny, his talents atpolitical spin and good one-liners don’t help much. And I think herein liesa difficulty for the Mayor. He is charming and witty and more able than mostpoliticians I have met – but an executive Mayor makes all the decisions andis accountable for those decisions.

And it’s proving tougher than he thought.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000

It could have happened to anyone. In fact, it does on a daily basis – being caught in an ‘incident’ on the tube. And this time it wasn’t a broken escalator, signal failure or any of the myriad reasons we, the travelling public, are given for being treated like cattle. I travel everyday on the tube and am sadly only too used to the usual levels of discomfort or delay,but this time I felt in real danger.

I changed from the Northern Line to the District and Circle line at Embankment. It’s a nasty, thin platform at the best of times, and the morning rush hour is certainly not the best of times. This particular day it was already extremely crowded, when another packed train drew in. After a minute or so, a voice announced that everyone must get off the train. A security incident and a small fire meant the train had to be emptied.

In fact, the platform was so full to crushing, that the twelve hundred people packed onto the train couldn’t actually all get off. The platform guard was hectoring them through the microphone: ‘the sooner you get off,the sooner the train can move out’. Faultless logic, but asking the impossible.

To make matters worse, I saw that people were still trying to come down the stairs onto the platform from the ticket hall. Nothing had been done at that point to stop even more people joining the overcrowded platform – and action was only taken when I asked the platform guard to do so. At this point, I decided for my own safety, to leave the platform via a no-entry sign and walked to my destination. It was lucky for me that I only had needed to travel one more stop.

The platform had been so crowded that at one point when the platform guard received instructions via the emergency telephone to help the driver get the doors shut, his answer to his colleagues was, ‘I can’t get to the doors. I can’t move. I can’t get down the platform’.

I telephoned the Managing Director of London Underground. My call fell on stony ground. Eventually I got an answer on his behalf from his PA. Her view was that as no one had died, everything was fine and I clearly had not understood the safety procedures put in place by the people on the ground.

I remain unconvinced. If a train has to be emptied, whatever London Underground’s emergency procedures are, I don’t believe that any platform should ever get to the point where the platform guard cannot actually move.I may be wrong – but members of the public deserve answers. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has had experiences on the tube where they felt at risk from overcrowding. Please contact me using my online surgery.

But there is also a wider issue. The Labour government still wants to push ahead with the sell-off and privatisation of parts of our tube system. You might have thought they would have learnt from the state of our railways!But even on the tube itself the warnings are already there. The Health & Safety Executive has already warned about the safety problems caused by the “shadow running” London Underground is carrying out to practice for privatisation. And if privatisation goes ahead, the private companies will be permitted to let performance standards drop by up to 5% initially.

Mayor Livingstone has made some good first steps to improve our tube system,including bringing in Robert Kiley, who sorted out the New York subway.Labour should back-off from the obsession with privatisation and let people like Kiley get on with making the tube quick, safe and reliable.

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

I have only ever taken one taxi home from a Haringey council meeting. I hadarrived by public transport, but there is no direct public transport routehome from Wood Green. So I asked reception to order a cab for me when mymeeting finished.

When the cab arrived home at my door, I asked how much I owed. The driverturned to me and said ‘No! There’s no need to pay – it’s on account.” “But Idon’t want it on account – I want to pay” I replied.

“I can’t take money” the cabbie said, “This has never happened before.”A battle ensued, which ended with him calling his head office and eventuallygetting permission for me to pay him. It certainly made me wonder what anearth was going on with the use of taxis from Haringey Town Hall. Pursuingthe matter, I discovered that if the cabbie comes for “Cllr so and so”, itis automatically on account and the councillor does not pay, unless – as Idid – they absolutely insist.

Of course, into the middle of this situation, arrives Cllr Lord Toby Harris,ex-leader of Haringey Council, with his taxi bill for £15,062. He has obviously notbeen as persuasive as myself in getting the cabbie to let him pay his fare!Now my small fledgling pursuit will be followed by a bigger pursuit, Ihope, by the District Auditor.

Haringey Council’s profligacy with our council tax money is in contrast withthe much clearer and explicit rules used by the Greater London Authority. Inthe four months since my election to the GLA, I have taken only four, maybefive, taxis. All of those, bar one, were shared with other GLA members goingto the same meetings. GLA members must use public transport whereverpossible, and all journeys by taxi are carefully recorded so that it is easyto check the rules are being followed.

At the end of the first year of accounts of the GLA, I would expect allMembers’ expenses to be scrutinised and audited rigorously. Standards inpublic life are paramount. Sadly, all this is very different from the recordof Haringey Council.

Whilst the District Auditor is investigating Lord Harris’s expenses, I hopehe has a close look at Labour Haringey’s part in this business. To date, theLabour leader, Cllr George Meehan, has supported Toby Harris to the hilt,refusing to criticise him and leaving it to others to raise the issues, askthe questions and call in the District Auditor.

We cannot judge Toby Harris’s guilt or otherwise – that must rest with theDistrict Auditor. But we can, without doubt, point the finger of blame atLabour Haringey for doing nothing to ensure that measures were in place toprevent abuse or that monitoring was in place to catch such abuse.

As usual, Labour Haringey are acting too late and doing too little. Horseand stable door are the words that spring to mind. Now they are setting up apanel to look into Members’ expenses. Pity it cost Haringey taxpayers somuch before Labour were forced to do the right thing.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000

Ken Livingstone is a party animal. Not a Labour party animal – but a realparty animal. From his own bash at the Tate Modern to the Mansion Housedinner – Ken’s on the ‘A’ list now. Perhaps that’s why he wants all Londonto party every New Year’s Eve.

I don’t want to be a party-pooper, but Ken’s party will cost £3 millionevery year just to police. This – as I pointed out at a recent meeting ofthe new Metropolitan Police Authority – is the equivalent of 100 policeofficers. Now you simply cannot stand on a manifesto, as Ken did, whichpromises to put 2,000 police back onto London’s streets and in practicallyyour first act as Mayor knock a hundred off. I’ve suggested that if theMayor wishes to pursue his promise he look elsewhere to find the £3 millionto pay the police for their services that night.

The reality of how few police we have left is stark. At night, about 20officers police Haringey. It only takes one significant incident in one partof the borough and the rest of the borough is left unattended. Crime figuresare rising and response times are lengthening.

The policing structure in Haringey has been changing: front countersclosing, local stations closing and/or opening fewer hours and fast responsevehicles being centralised. The police line has been that this new regimewill produce more efficient and better policing. When the changes started Ilobbied senior local police officers, worried that these changes would meanrising crime in areas where reductions were being made and that responsetimes would lengthen. Sadly this is just what has happened.

A friend was concerned that if I wrote my column and stated how stark thingsare it would frighten people. I don’t want people to panic, but when thepolice commissioner himself, Sir John Stevens, states publicly that hecannot guarantee to police London safely at the current level of policeofficers, I think the government needs to take note and we citizens, inwhatever capacity, need to apply pressure. We deserve to be safe and we havea right to proper policing.

By the time this article is published, we will have heard from theGovernment as to how much the police will get in the Comprehensive SpendingReview. And I hope it is a lot – because Labour have been appalling on theirmanifesto pledge to ‘put more police on the beat, not pushing paper.’Instead, we have seen the loss of 2500 officers and thousands of civilianstaff since they came to office.

But I have no doubt it will be too little, too late. So much damage has beensustained that rebuilding our police force, recruiting and retaining themand ensuring a representative police force, will take years. And theConservatives deserve a knocking on this one too. They like to knock Labourfor cutting police numbers, but seem to hope that everyone will forget thatthey did just the same when in power!

So in order to help Ken avoid cutting police numbers – let alone our poorpolice force having to work every New Year’s Eve in perpetuity – I suggestthat Ken has his bash once every four years. And perhaps it should be theNew Year’s Eve of the last year of the Mayor’s term of office so that he cancelebrate his term’s success – or if his performance has been foundwanting – at least go out with a bang.