Tag Archives: ken livingstone

Mayor's Question Time

Posted on by

Today was Mayor’s Question Time at City Hall. As ever much of the debate was around transport issues – and as I lead on Transport for the LibDems as well as being Chair of the Transport Committee, I get to do all the talking.

Mayor Livingstone, the Tories, Labour etc al. – they all had a go at the LibDems for one thing or another. I can only assume that they are all feeling threatened. The Tories are apoplectic because we have come out against the Mayor’s proposals to extend the Congestion Charge westwards into Kensington & Chelsea. When the Tories are against congestion charging – no one blinks with surprise. But when the LibDems, who are 100% supporters of the congestion charge say no to the extension – then the Mayor really ought to take notice.

Firstly it’s premature. We won’t have any of the proper analysis from the monitoring data until next February – nothing about the impact on business, the economy or the social aspects of the charge. Secondly – it’s going to cost £120million that we haven’t got to set it up – and there will be roughly break even when up between income and running costs. When there is so much that needs doing, it wouldn’t be my first choice for that £120million.

Also – it’s the wrong technological way forward. We must move to Global Satellite Positioning so that we can target congested hot spots – the blunt tool of area charging won’t work to expand the scheme. The first central area was OK because there was a definable logic – people coming into and going home from work.

Congestion Charging needs to grow up and become far more sophisticated and planned for those areas that need it and want it anywhere in London – not just Zone 1.

Only fools (and Ken) rush in …

The other battle we had was over the Governments’ CriminJusticetic Bill to which the LibDems had put down an amendment. What the Government is suggesting is that anyone who is detained at a police station should have

a DNA test AND that the records should be held in perpetuity regardless of whether that person goes onto be charged or convicted. So even if completely innocent – that person would forever have their DNA on record. Moving towards a police state very fast at the moment with ID cards, CCTV cameras, removal of trial by jury.

Obviously there is a balance between catching and incarceratinging criminals and civil liberties – but it is too easy to become draconian in justice’s name and to wake up and find that we live in a state not so different to the communist states we used to loathe. Big Brother is knocking on our door.

If the Government wants to keep a DNA register of citizens – then let it fight for that and have a proper debate – not remove our freedoms by stealth.

Politics Show

Posted on by

I appeared on the Politics Show on BBC1 today. My daughter came with me to see it filmed at City Hall – only so that I could take her on to Tate Modern to see the ‘Weather’ exhibit.

The subjects for the show were ‘Super Boroughs’ and speed humps.

Mayor Livingstone has said that he would like to get rid of the London Boroughs and replace them with five Super Boroughs. There were three Assembly Members there to argue the toss. My comment was that we should be wary when the Mayor wants Super Boroughs and that we have to ask ourselves – super for who?

You can be sure if the Mayor wants them it is because he is not getting on with the 32 boroughs we have already got.

Moreover, experience has showed me that the more you pull power into a centralised system – and the further away that is from where services are delivered on the street – the worse those services get.

On road humps – this has come up because I have put an investigation on the agenda for the Transport Committee at the Assembly, which I chair. I have long been interested in their efficacy – and no work has really been done on this across London.

I have called for evidence from many organisations across London and from individuals with tales to tell.

My hope is that we will find ways of retaining the benefits of reduced speed while removing the drawbacks of noise, pollution and the 500 deaths per year the ambulance service say result from having to slow down because of humps. So watch this space.

Southwood Lane bus route

Posted on by

I met Nick Lewin and Steve Walker from Transport for London to walk the proposed length of the new, soon to be trialled, Muswell Hill to Swiss Cottage bus route.

This vital route is one I have campaigned on with others for six years and finally Mayor Livingstone bowed to public pressure and it is to be introduced in January for a 6 month trial of 4 buses a day at school peak hours.

But nothing is easy – and the residents of Southwood Lane, where the bus will be routed, are really worried that the road is too narrow and that congestion will increase. They are also worried that TfL will move back a retaining wall which will mean loss of trees and that the on-street parking will be taken away.

I walked the route with the two key managers of the route to put all the residents’ points two them. Most of the points were well answered – no removal of parking and no cut back of the retaining wall. However, I think there may well be congestion at the top of the road.

I have asked TfL to turn the bus right at Archway Road and bring it round a wider road – but the officers say the right turn would make traffic stack back up Southwood Lane even worse than now.

There is a meeting next week between the key objectors, myself and TfL. My own view is that the trial will show any problems – and TfL have promised to amend the route if necessary.

Tube derailments

Posted on by

Today I chaired an emergency London Assembly Transport Committee meeting about the Tube. In attendance were:

– ASLEF and RMT from the union,

– Tim O’Toole (the man in charge of the Tube for Transport for London) and Mike Streslecki (safety director for London Underground), and

– both the Chief Execs from the private consortia (Tubelines – Camden derailment and Metronet – Hammersmith derailment).

So all the key players were in the room.

The key concerns emerged quite clearly:

– all parties agreed that the maintenance done on both lines pre-accidents was up to the standard specified in the PPP contract. Therefore the conclusion drawn to in the room – subject to the results of the enquiry – are that the standards specified within the contract are inadequate.

– the unions angrily voiced that their staff often reported faults with track or equipment and were ignored. I found this a terrifying piece of information – as did clearly Tim O’Toole who promised to address this immediately.

– the inspection regime did not pick up any faults, therefore it is likely that this is also not of a standard required to ensure that faults are found.

– Bob Kiley went on the record just after the accident to say that he needed more information from Tubelines (who manage the infrastructure on the Northern Line). There was a terse response from Tubeline’s Chief Executive, Terry Morgan, that he was supplying all necessary information. So at the emergency summit, I put their dispute directly to Tim O’Toole (on Bob Kiley’s behalf) and Terry Morgan as they were in the room together. What transpired was that Bob Kiley was actually asking for more and different information from that which Tubelines were contracted to supply. I basically said that was unacceptable to traveling Londoners who, if the Commissioner of Transport said he needed more information to run the Tube, expected him to get it. Terry Morgan said he would address it and would supply it. And I asked for a report back on progress on this within a couple of weeks.

What all this points at particularly, I think, is the weakness of the contract regime sitting on top of a dilapidating infrastructure that will not be improved quickly enough within the PPP contracts.

You can’t blame Tubelines for not supplying requirements outside of the contract – that is the nature of a contract. However, who pays for what is needed over and above the PPP contract (and that is going to be a lot of different and large bills)?

My own personal view is that the Government should be legally liable as it was responsible for signing off a contract which was inadequate in terms of maintenance standards, inspections and supply of information – and that’s only what is showing itself so far.

However, Mayor Livingstone is politically responsible and accountable – and the onus is therefore on him to ensure that the standards of maintenance, inspection etc. are at a level where London can have confidence in the integrity of the infrastructure.

This doesn’t even touch on what the ambition for decent standards on the Tube should be.

Road safety in Lewisham

Posted on by

Just back from Lewisham where I was inspecting two dangerous junctions where pedestrians take their life in their hands to cross.

As I arrived early, I trotted across the junctions to test for myself. Even though it was only 9am on a Sunday morning, I only narrowly avoided getting squashed myself. Have previously written to Mayor Livingstone about these junctions at local peoples’ behest, I’m now even more committed to getting proper pedestrian crossings in place.

Seeing is definitely believing …