Former Tory London Mayor candidate Steve Norris is out of Ken Livingstone’s big tent! Unceremoniously dumped! Thrown off of the Board of Transport for London! Hurrah!

A radio interviewer asked me whether I thought Ken couldn’t deal with Norris’s criticism of his proposals on congestion charging and cycling and was that was the reason for Steve Norris’s forced exit? Oh please! Ken is a very big boy and I doubt whether the few paid for slings and arrows thrown by Norris were even a minor blip in the scale of criticism Ken meets on a daily basis from a whole range of foes.

Rather, Steve Norris was dumped because his position on the Transport Board had become untenable. You simply cannot take money from as many transport interests as Steve Norris did – and then speak with any credibility whatsoever on the transport issues discussed at board meetings. For example, Norris is on the board of one of the companies in the consortia bidding to take part in the Government’s part-privatisation of the Tube. How could anything he said about the future of the Tube be taken to represent London’s interest rather than those of the company set to make a nice little earner from Tube privatisation?

Another interviewer asked me what difference Norris’s departure would make to London? I think my answer was probably unprintable – suffice to say – b****r all. But what will make a difference to London – well particularly my part of London – is the Muswell Hill to Swiss Cottage bus link. I and others have been campaigning for it for a long time and we are now on the brink of success. The relevant three boroughs – Camden, Haringey and Barnet all now back the scheme, as does Transport for London. The final hurdle is Ken – all he has to do is give it final approval by granting the financial bid and we’re in business. And remember, this new route had Ken’s full backing when he was campaigning to become Mayor – that’s not something I’ll let him forget!

In fact, he recently made the mistake of sitting next to me at a lunch – far too near for me to resist a bit of a lobbying attempt – and he admitted that with all that support it must be in a good position to get the financial bid through. Feel free to deluge the Mayor and with letters of support for the new bus route – it all helps. Ken’s address is Romney House, 43 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 3PY.

So fingers crossed, we will know in December. Just think – all that school run traffic and congestion which is currently caused by the lack of a realistic public transport alternative but which the new bus route will help reduce. And also remember older people and mothers with toddlers who currently have no really choice but to use their cars, because the alternative is to face endless waits and changes. All those car journeys saved because people are given a new public transport alternative – that’s really dealing with congestion. It’s just the sort of bus route improvements we should be seeing all over London.

The other thing that will make far more difference to London than Steve Norris’s exit is Ken making sure that he has another look at some of the boundary issues around the proposed congestion charging areas.

Personally, I am convinced that a sensible congestion charging scheme is an absolute must to help tackle London’s transport problems. However, I am still concerned that the Mayor’s timetable is leaving the boroughs in some distress. I hear tales of woe about lack of discussion, high-handed decision-making by the centre and so on. Two things here: firstly the success of this scheme means that the boroughs, including Camden and Islington where the boundary splits the whole, need to be firmly on board. The Mayor needs to foster a happy relationship with them. So my advice, as it was to Ken at Mayor’s Question Time last week, is be nice to the boroughs. Whilst Steve Norris may not be your partner any more – he was totally dispensable – the boroughs are not.

In the cause of genuine rapprochement, I am hoping to bring all sides together in the near future in the form of a summit. Where angels fear to tread! It’ll be interesting to see what happens …

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

If there’s one way to get up Ken’s nose, it is to suggest that he is not quite up to the Giuliani New York model of mayor-hood. So I had a real go at him at last Mayor’s Question Time. I accused him of lacking leadership and being invisible compared to New York’s Mayor who was getting out there and telling people to go to the theatres, get on with life and go back to the restaurants. I advised him to get out there too and show some leadership before all our theatres went dark and more jobs were lost.

Following my outburst, there were articles in the papers and a column from Simon Jenkins all urging much the same – and blow me – soon after Ken was seen on the news visiting rehearsals for Kiss Me Kate. Quite right too!

To my pleasant surprise, Ken ambled into my office last Friday to tell me that he was giving £500,000 to London’s theatres for free tickets. Now, whilst I am not sure that would have been my first course of action, it is good that the Mayor is finally taking a lead in saving London’s theatres and tourist industry – an industry on its knees following the September 11 atrocities. And as for the Government, they have done sweet FA as yet to help London.

They appear to be impervious to the needs of London. They haven’t yet stomped up a penny to pay for the extra policing needed at this moment in time and if they do now find some money to help the theatres, it will only be because they have been embarrassed into it.

Labour seems to have completely fallen out of love with London – not just because of Ken – but because even the emasculated form of government that is the Mayor and Assembly is another voice for London – and one they can’t control. And losing control is so not Millbank.

They screwed up Wembley. They lost us the World Athletic Championships at Pickett’s Lock. They changed the Index of Deprivation criteria to switch money away from us to other parts of the country. They’ve stuffed us with the break-up and privatisation of the Tube (although the sudden announcement last week that the PPP arrangements may fail the safety case could be the first steps in a climb down – let’s hope so).

And the latest proposal from Bob Kiley that London should have its own strategic Rail Authority following the Railtrack debacle will no doubt fall on stony ground. Yet it is an eminently sensible proposal and the best solution for London to have the power to integrate our transport policy, to fight London’s corner and deliver better transport services.

Anyway, back to the theatre, to be honest I was as guilty as the next person. I lived in London and barely used the wonderful cultural opportunities that abound. My kids moaned that I never took them to the theatre. Finally – enough with the guilt – I sat down the day after New Year’s in 2000 to fulfil my millennium New Year’s resolution and booked 6 nights out throughout the year. It worked pretty well – because it was virtually a year to get tickets for shows like Lion King and Mama Mia. We had a great year of theatre visits and I did the same this year.

So, unlike me – don’t wait for New Year’s. Get your tickets now. And right now getting tickets is the easiest it’s ever been.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

It’s a year today since the election for a Mayor and Assembly for London. So – how was it for you?

Speaking personally, it’s been quite something. To be in, not just at the birth of a unique new form of government, but Chair of the Assembly’s Transport Policy committee and a member of the new Metropolitan Police Authority is an honour I am more than grateful for and an opportunity few people get in a lifetime.

There are some drawbacks. I don’t have enough time for my children. I don’t have a social life and I am looking older and a bit haggard. But I wouldn’t change it for the world. London is just an amazing city and I get to play a part in working to deliver an even better capital city. We all know what needs doing – it’s pushing it through and doing it that is the challenge.

If I had to give Ken marks out of ten for his first year as Mayor, I guess I would give him six-ish – perhaps seven if he’d be even tougher in fighting the Government over its Tube privatisation plans.

What are the good things he has done? He hired Bob Kiley, New York’s transport saviour, to be London’s Transport Commissioner. That single move will probably do London more good than anything.

Livingstone also deserves praise for fighting the Government’s plans to privatise the Tube. This is the key battle for London. My fear at this moment in time is that Livingstone is afraid of hurting them in the run up to the election. He balks at telling Londoners to send Labour a message through the ballot box, which is a shame, because that is the only place this Government seems to listen to.

Instead he has handed over absolute control to Kiley to negotiate a final deal on the Tube. Well, as much as I respect Kiley, he is in the end a transport manager and this is a political battle. As much as Ken may wish to avoid the political confrontation with Prescott, Blair and Brown – the row is a political power issue and it is his political job as Mayor of London to fight for what’s best for London, not what’s expedient for the Government – to keep quiet until after the election.

Also to Livingstone’s credit is that he has put congestion charging firmly on the agenda. This huge undertaking is an important step towards the cultural changes that will be necessary in every major, traffic-ridden city in the world. There are all sorts of difficulties ahead, but the major one is changing the car culture.

We all love our cars – comfortable, relatively cheap, no exposure to the elements – but it can’t go on. And any politician who challenges the notion that we might not be able to use our cars just when we like and how we like is a very brave one. But not beginning the long road to control car usage would cost us far more in the long term. Of course, the challenge for Ken here is to make public transport so good that the pain of withdrawal from our cars is mitigated by a better and cheaper alternative. And let’s not forget that cutting congestion on the roads will also benefit people making those journeys that still have to be made by car.

And he finally showed real leadership – unequivocal condemnation of anarchist’s plans over the May Day demonstrations. By the time this is published, we will know whether anarchy or peaceful protest over capitalist globalisation was the order of the day. But the Mayor of London stood full square in the public arena and condemned violence, and pointed out that it damaged what actually are valid protests and did those causes harm.

Small but important things Ken has done: put pigeons in their place; encouraged businesses to give old computers to London school kids; made travel on public transport for school trips free. All good moves.

But there are also things he hasn’t done in his first year and should have. Firstly, he hasn’t got any real plans to tackle traffic congestion in outer London. He has done nothing about the killer school run where better public transport can make a real difference – such as much needed introduction of a bus route linking Muswell Hill, Highgate and Hampstead.

He should have got a shovel underground on at least one of the major infrastructure projects such as Cross Rail or the Chelsea-Hackney line.

He should have condemned the Tube strikes unequivocally. They hurt Londoners who already have an impossible time getting to work. Whilst everyone in London is concerned about safety on the Tube and probably in some sympathy with that aspect of the unions’ concerns, Ken should have used his close relationship with the unions and advised them to use their power to tell people to send Blair a message on the Tube. Alternatively, he could have suggested to them instead of striking, to work a normal day – but refuse to take any fares. That’s a good message too – that hurts the government not the people.

So happy first birthday Mayor Ken. Push harder and move faster. And remember Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a politician – “An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organised society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice.”

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

Bob Kiley, London’s Transport Commissioner said it. ‘It smells like privatisation. It walks like privatisation. It talks like privatisation.’ We have all known what Labour’s PPP plan for the Tube really is all along, but it’s been a bit like the Emperor’s New Clothes in the Labour camp. The Public Private Partnership. The privatisation that dare not speak its name.

So where are we now in this sorry, sad and dangerous saga? The much-heralded compromise talks between John Prescott and Bob Kiley have fallen apart. Mayor Livingstone and Kiley have gone to court and judicial review is on the agenda for mid-June (just a few days after any general election on June 7!).

And where are the Liberal Democrats in all of this? Holding firm to our twin commitments: to keep the Tube in public ownership and to fund this by a bonds revenue issue. It is the only safe, economic way forward.

Livingstone has half backed down. He says he is now happy to give up bonds as a way to raise the revenue if, in exchange, he can get a convoluted, bastardised compromise that through some legal contractual nightmarish twists sort of allows a ‘unified’ management structure for the Tube.

In answer to one of my questions at Mayor’s Question Time, Livingstone basically said he didn’t care where the money came from. Well that’s old Ken – not caring about where the money comes from, even if that means things costing far more in the long run – and PPP will cost far more than bonds, with all the bad knock-on effects that means for levels of service and ticket prices.

Of course, it is no surprise that Ken is willing to wobble on such a key issue, because ultimately he wants to crawl back into the Labour womb. He is caught between wanting to fight for London and wanting to get back in to the Labour party.

Despite Livingstone’s best efforts, there are a number of reasons why there can be no clean, clear, economic and safe compromise position on the Tube.

Firstly, there is no compromise between owning 51% of a company and therefore having control over it – or not having control. Any legal structure, which seeks to negate this basic tenet of business, will be so complicated and so torturous, that only lawyers will benefit – not London. Kiley has made it quite clear that without a unified management structure and without overall control of day-to-day maintenance – the Tube will not be safe. Currently, the Tube has a very good safety record that can be attributed to the fact, despite the management often being poor, it does at least have unified management. Splitting it up between three private companies and Transport for London will build in a fault line making the Tube an accident waiting to happen.

Secondly, as much as Prescott continues to state that the Government is pushing ahead with PPP and that this is an absolutely wonderful way to fund a safe Tube – his two favourite ‘spins’ are false. One – That the Tube will remain in public ownership because after the 30 year contract the ‘assets’ revert to Transport for London. Translated from the warm words this means that for 30 years the Tube will not be in public ownership. Two – that the London public need not worry because safety comes first with the government and they will not proceed until the Health & Safety Executive pronounce it safe so to do.

London Underground has to make the ‘safety case’ to the Health & Safety Executive. Cold comfort then to know that this ‘safety case’ has already failed three times and if it ever succeeds, who knows what they will have had to do to get around the innumerable difficulties. And Prescott, remember, was determined to steam ahead and hand over large parts of the Tube system to Railtrack until the Ladbroke Grove tragedy forced even him to have second thoughts.

Thirdly, this whole row is nothing to do with what is best for London’s Tube. Make no mistake; this is a battle to the death over power. If Gordon Brown and the Treasury relax fiscal rules to allow Ken to raise money by a bonds issue for the Tube, what else might Ken then wish to raise money for in this way? And what other Mayors in other future cities, or indeed what other public bodies might then wish to raise money this way? And – oh my goodness – if Ken can raise money to achieve things for London, he might have real power and London’s devolution would no longer be the toothless regional government that Labour intended. If the Government lose fiscal control, ultimately they lose political control. For the most controlling government in living memory that is the nightmare of all nightmares. Therein lies the true difficulty. Labour wants power, and it doesn’t want Mayor Livingstone.

Given everything that has happened in the last few months, it is easy to forget what happened during the London Mayor contest last year. In that Mayoral contest, Dobson – the official Labour candidate – stood on an anti-Tube privatisation ticket. It was there in black and white in his ten-point plan for London. Check out point number three.

All Labour’s GLA candidates stood with him on this programme, many happily appearing in leaflets, press releases and photo opportunities backing Dobson and his plan. But where are they now? Having run for election claiming to be opposed to Tube privatisation, they are now firmly backing it in the guise of PPP.

Well, Labour may have got away with this last year, but at the next general election we can make sure that reality catches up with them. I have no doubt that in the election, Labour candidates for Parliament will also try and infer in their literature and in their press releases that they are actually against privatisation or that the PPP is not really privatisation. Don’t let them get away with it!

I wanted to give Ken a hug last week and say you’re doing OK – keep going. He looked so miserable, sitting alone at his little desk towards the front of the stage at ‘Peoples Question Time’.

This is a twice-yearly event where Mayor and Assembly face ‘the people’ and answer public questions. The first had been in central London. This one was south of the river, and next time, hopefully, the road-show will come north. So be ready!

We (the Assembly) sit in two lines along the back of the stage, like some dreadful chorus line, only less decorative and certainly less entertaining. A minor celebrity chaired the event. Ken Livingstone was definitely not his usual chirpy self. Not surprising given that this was the day he had announced he was taking Labour to court over its plans to sell-off and privatise the Tube. Maybe he was thinking that this might not be the best way for him to win friends and influence the party into whose womb he reportedly wishes to climb back. No – the ‘cheeky chappy’ was definitely downbeat.

Or maybe his low spirits were caused by the fact that it is so desperately difficult to engage ‘the people’ successfully. There wasn’t adequate time for a real debate or argy-bargy. Ten minutes for policing. Ten minutes for equalities. Ten minutes for housing, etc. Transport was given longer – but of course there is so much that people want to discuss – but in the end the answers are always much the same and predictable.

Ken answered each question first – followed by a relevant member of the Assembly or two. From the feedback we got, it would seem that the audience felt Ken should have said more and the Assembly less. Thanks a lot folks! It confirms my view that much of London barely knows that there are 25 elected members of London government – let alone what we do. If people don’t know who we are, or what we do, how can we sensibly be held to account at the next London elections?

But how can we engage people? It is easy to be cynical about these events. I feel they serve a purpose – if only that the Mayor and Assembly actually go out into an area outside of central London and put themselves directly in the firing line. Perhaps it’s difficult because people have been turned off by previous consultation processes that were actually public relations exercises by their local councils to push something through?

Consultation should be an engaging experience that informs and affects outcome. Sometimes it works. For example, “Planning for Real” – involving local communities in decisions over regeneration projects on their estates – was done properly and did produce wonderful results.

However, over-consultation – particularly when it is used as a thin cover for already closed minds – is devaluing this genuinely valuable and democratic tool. What an earth are people to make of the current consultation across, not only London, but the whole country, on what form of local council structures we want?

I just came back from a week-end away with two friends and assorted children and I was telling them that I was minded to write a column on consultation. They started telling me about consultations they had recently received – one on the new forms of local governance and one on what sort of secondary education she wanted in the borough.

‘What do I know?’ asked one friend. ‘I don’t have the information to make a real contribution to this. What’s the point? They don’t listen anyway!’ And the other said: ‘Do we want a Mayor and Council Manager? Do we want a cabinet and Leader? How the hell should I know? How can I judge?’

We still have to try though. And Ken is one of the few politicians (outside of Liberal Democrats of course!) who I believe is genuine in wanting to engage with the public to find out what they really think. So cheer up Mayor!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2001

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