The proposals, which are set out in a draft report to be presented at a meeting of the London Assembly Business Management and Administration Committee next week, follow a six-month review of the watchdog by Assembly Members.
At present the London Assembly funds TravelWatch and appoints its board members, however the draft report has recommended that AMs do not fill six places on the watchdog’s board which will become vacant in December.
Further the report proposes that existing TravelWatch staff “be re-located to City Hall as soon as is practical, and by the latest April 2011” and that discussions be opened with TravelWatch’s landlord over the future of its Middle Street offices.
Other proposals include “contracting Passenger Focus to fulfil the functions of London TravelWatch in relation to rail passengers in the capital” and that the body “stops responding to borough consultations relating to streets with immediate effect.”
It is also proposed that “London TravelWatch ceases committing resource to production and publication of its performance monitoring reports with immediate effect” and that the watchdog “remove its contact details from publicity on buses by the end of 2010.”
The report also proposed that “discussions to this end, and any necessary legislative changes, are taken forward with the relevant government departments during the autumn.”
Responding to the review, TravelWatch Chair Sharon Grant said the organisation was “deeply shocked that the London Assembly wants to silence the only independent passenger voice in London, where transport is absolutely central to everyone’s life.”
The report will be presented to Business Management and Administration Committee on 23rd September 2010
Nick Biskinis says
It might have been surprising to the Chair of LTW, but not to many users groups who have encountered TravelWatch. This was a failing watchdog that called itself the “voice of transport users” but often acted like an arrogant quango, often using its position to endorse cuts to services, particularly in South London and consistantly compromising on compromises. The Chair would make emphatic statements about an issue only to renege and adopt a contrary position two months later. In South London, TravelWatch supported axeing of direct links to London Bridge and Victoria for several stations. Two years ago the previous Chair was fired for inappropriate political activity during the Mayoral election. It’s latest satisfaction figures are as low as 45%. All this in return for £16 million of Londoners’ taxes since 2000. The Assembly Review ostensibly sought to axe TravelWatch because of ‘rationalisation’ but in fact many Assembly Members were not impressed by this watchdog. I am afraid Sharon Grant’s protests have little sympathy with passengers who have seen their services axed with the support of this discredited organisation. The question is how to replace it with a proper watchdog that has the committment and passion to challenge and advocate Londoners’ interests
Damian Hockney says
In the draft London Assembly report, one’s eye is drawn to the statement: “Other proposed changes to the devolution settlement in London are likely to put significant pressure on accommodation within City Hall” (I read that as more staff and more spending). I may have missed something, but when you look at detail of the draft report’s claim about savings (in the very clearly presented box), you see large amounts listed for “ceasing to respond to borough road consultations and multi-modal consultations, ceasing production of performance monitoring reports, reducing the number of non-appeal inquiries by removing contact details from buses”. So who is going to perform these vital functions, and where are the corresponding costs listed for those who will do them (presumably at City Hall)? Or are they not going to be done by anyone? There are a number of such anomalies, and if these are not made really clear, then it simply looks like an attempt to downgrade passenger representation using the excuse of taking the committee under democratic control. BTW if you want real democratic control, then why not put the body up for election, not bury them in a body which already has a large number of committees and where there is a danger that the functions will simply get lost. But that’s another issue…
Damian Hockney says
Nick Biskinis does have a point (in fact many!), but is this a reason to scrap a body and possibly see passengers’ interests even more badly served? Surely the failure is as much the London Assembly’s already; isn’t the Assembly supposed to oversee and hold to account Travelwatch? A similar example might be Parliament – it should not be scrapped just because MPs abused their expenses, or because they have handed away powers to other bodies in return for bawbees or whatever…when changes are proposed you always surely have to look at the real reason behind the proposals and what they might lead to. And to make sure that ‘reforms’ (lovely word) will not neuter yet further passengers’ interests under the guise of ‘accountability’.