Another term I presume? - In conversation with Ken Livingstone

Aside from the cheeky grin and buff suit, Livingstone became personally associated with one piece of legislation over and above everything else. Like it or loathe it, he deserves respect for his sheer doggedness with which he has pushed through one of the most radical large scale traffic experiments in history. Every major metropolis in the world focused on London on February 17 and thankfully for the Mayor the technology seemed to work. Three months on there seems to be no major setbacks and the only obvious losers are shift workers and businesses who claim they have lost trade because of the charge.

With plans to extend the congestion charge zone to the west and the implementation of the London Development Plan (A huge scheme to transform underused land along the Thames) the Mayor’s a busy man – not least since becoming a father at the age of 57 – but he took some time out to speak to News on the Block.

Critics of the Congestion Charge have alleged that although the roads within the charging area are less congested all that has happened is the traffic has been moved outside the charging zone and created congestion there. How do you respond?

It is still early days, but what we do know is that since the charge began traffic levels within the central zone have been around 15-20 per cent lighter and all road users are feeling the benefit. Speculation about rat-runs being created by drivers trying to cut around the zone haven’t materialized and, although it is still too soon to be able to fully assess its success, I hope that by the summer we will have a full picture of how effective the congestion charge scheme is proving to be. The reduction in traffic coming into the central zone means that any increased traffic on the inner ring road ought to be able to move more smoothly, because there are less tailbacks cutting across these roads.

Retailers have complained that the Congestion Charge has affected their revenue. What plans do you have to protect the businesses of those that are suffering as 'collateral damage' of the Congestion Charge?

I honestly think that it is far more likely that business in general has been more affected by the continuing international situation, which has certainly had an impact on visitors to the capital, as well as the disruption of the Central Line, which is now thankfully almost behind us. It is true that the London Chamber of Commerce says that some small retailers claim to have been affected by the charge, but on the other hand the business group London First recently undertook a survey of business people in London showing that there is strong support for the scheme. A majority of those surveyed felt it had helped business. Less congestion within the zone has meant delivery times are being cut, saving time and money for central London retail businesses.

Many of our readers are concerned about the terrorist threat to London. What comfort can you offer them with regard to their safety and protection?

Since the atrocities of September 11th a huge amount of work has been done to make sure that London is prepared for any major terrorist attack or catastrophic event. A committee, London Resilience, has been established which is chaired by the Minister for local government and the regions, Nick Raynsford. I am a member of the committee – the vice chair in fact. The committee brings together a wide range of bodies such as emergency services, utilities, boroughs and the business community, who all have a part to play in protecting the capital.

In addition, the police and security services have done an excellent job in collecting intelligence and monitoring any potential terrorist activity. Because police numbers have risen dramatically in London over the last two years there is a bit more flexibility for the Met in being able to allocate police officers. This is why there have been some steps forward in reducing some crimes even though more police have had to be allocated to preventing terrorism.

What is your opinion of Rudolph Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, and what lessons from his leadership of New York do you seek to emulate yourself here in London?

Mayor Giuliani undoubtedly divided opinion amongst New Yorkers, but the underlying principle of his policing policies was fundamentally right. He applied the ‘broken windows’ theory: if a window in house is broken and stays broken, pretty soon the whole house will degenerate because people won’t respect it. In other words you have got to look after your neighbourhoods, stop the criminals getting a foothold, defend your public spaces, put the police where people need them. This was the real lesson: more police actually out on the streets, combined with better intelligence about which precincts needed attention. Mayor Giuliani oversaw 8 years in which crime was cut by 62 per cent. Whatever else you do when you look at the Giuliani legacy, you have to recognise the extraordinary impact of that achievement. I don’t directly run the police – I set their overall budget but the Commissioner has operational control. However, I have used my budget-setting powers to expand police numbers. After more than a decade of cuts in police numbers, we’re now starting to see major growth in our police service and by this time next year there will be more police in London than at any time in our city's history.

One very direct lesson of New York was using the police to turn the tide in specific public places. We have translated that lesson by setting up a new transport operational command unit in the police force, paid for by my transport body, Transport for London. This combines police officers patrolling bus services, protecting the public and enforcing the traffic regulations, with a dedicated team cracking down on taxi-touts, who are a major source of violent attacks on the public.

What is your priority in improving London Underground and when can we begin to see the real signs of that improvement?

To be blunt, it is not clear when we will see improvements on the tube. I still don’t have control of the Underground and even when it is finally handed over to myself and my Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley, we will still be working within the confines of the Government's Public Private Partnership. This means many of the urgently needed improvements on the Tube are still quite a number of years away or very vaguely laid out in the private contracts.
I made it a condition of any appointment of a new MD at London Underground that they must have successfully run a railway, which unfortunately rules out most railway operators in Britain! I have put in place a new management team, led by Tim O'Toole, who was appointed after an extensive international search. He is ready and waiting to take over the tube but in the meantime, the interim arrangements mean that there is a management vacuum at the top of London underground. It is extremely frustrating.

London's historic skyline and picturesque views are constantly under threat from proposed new buildings, particularly in the City. What measures do you propose to protect and enhance London's skyline?

I don’t think changes to London’s skyline are necessarily a threat. London would die if it did not evolve. The issue is the quality and location of tall buildings. As long as they are well designed and in the right place - near other tall buildings to form a cluster for example, or at a transport interchange - they can be a welcome addition to the skyline. The Swiss-Re Tower – the so-called Gherkin - and Renzo Piano's proposed London Bridge Tower are two great examples of this. In my draft London Plan, a final version of which will be published at the end of this year, I have specific policies on what kind of tall buildings should be allowed, and specific guidance protecting certain views such as the view of St Paul's and views long the river. The Plan seeks to achieve a balance between the old and the new.

What are your plans to increase the affordability of housing in the Capital?

The basic problem in London is that affordable house building virtually stopped under the Conservative governments. They removed a lot of council housing from the local authorities through right-to-buy and then stopped these same councils from building new homes by squeezing their budgets.

Through my draft London Plan, which will become the strategic planning document for the whole of London, I have set an overall target for affordable housing in the capital at 50 per cent. I also have specific planning powers on major sites, and by my direct intervention on planning applications I have achieved more than 1,000 extra affordable units, with many more thousand to come. On the proposed major redevelopment at Kings Cross, for example, I along with the developers and Camden Council have agreed there should be 50 per cent affordable housing.