House Of Lords Consider Future Of TravelWatch

By · July 11, 2011 at 11:30 am · 7 Comments · Latest News · Report an error ·

London could lose its independent representation for transport users if London Assembly proposals to abolish TravelWatch go ahead this week.

Under a proposed amendment to the Localism Bill, which is being put forward to the House of Lords, a new clause would result in the abolition of London TravelWatch and the transfer of its existing functions and powers to the London Assembly, a political organisation.

London TravelWatch is the independent watchdog representing passengers who use buses, the Underground, Docklands Light Railway, Tramlink and London’s principal road network, as well as National Rail users in and around London.

The changes would result in the politicisation of certain transport decisions which on the face of it might not mean much. Unless, say, a member of the London Assembly proposes something which will adversely affect passengers while counting on the support of their same-party colleagues who are supposed to be acting on behalf of those very same passengers.

But consider further: transport users would no longer have an independent committee working with TfL and other providers for the sole benefit of passengers. So we might not see reports like this one, which examines the reasons behind the £60m-worth of incomplete Oyster journeys and how they can be addressed. Or someone to complain to when train companies fail (spectacularly in some cases) in their treatment of paying customers. That’s not to say that disgruntled passengers couldn’t approach the London Assembly, but TravelWatch say one of their greatest assets is their impartiality.

Last year, the London Assembly undertook a review of TravelWatch, which proposed the removal of the committee, splitting TfL and National Rail issues between the London Assembly and Passenger Focus, the watchdog for National Rail. This complicates matters for passengers and certainly wouldn’t provide a cohesive overview of transport problems across the capital. The review also sought to limit TravelWatch’s activities on behalf of passengers:

  • We propose that, with immediate effect, London TravelWatch cease responding to large-scale transport consultations to which the Assembly is planning to respond.
  • We propose that London TravelWatch ceases committing resource to production and publication of its performance monitoring reports with immediate effect.
  • We propose that London TravelWatch asks Transport for London to remove its contact details from publicity on buses by the end of 2010. It should ask Transport for London only to provide these details when a complainant has expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome and wants to appeal. The Board should take further immediate measures to redirect and deter inquiries which are not related to appeals.

Just to reinforce the point, they also recommended that half of TravelWatch’s board should not be replaced and the remainder should up sticks and go to City Hall. Given that the TravelWatch board have previously hailed from various areas within the capital, allowing them to provide first-hand experience of transport in those areas, this move severely limits the geographical diversity of the board. There are currently no board members in south London, for example, a part of the city which has long suffered gaps in its public transport infrastructure. That means no voice on TravelWatch for south London. And that’s not great.

The Conservative, Labour, Green and Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly are unusually united on this particular front: the review’s working group consisted of Richard Tracey (Cons), John Biggs (Lab), Darren Johnson (Green) and Caroline Pidgeon (Lib). Richard Tracey has made no secret of his disapproval of TravelWatch in the past. Back in 2008, he criticised the sacking of TravelWatch’s then-Chair, Brian Cooke, over his open support of Boris Johnson’s travel policies – support which from an independent representative should not have been in the public arena. Tracey was also one of those Conservative members to walk out before the Blackfriars speed limit debate recently.

But what about the mayor himself? Boris Johnson surely can’t have been that thrilled to see one of his supporters being ousted from an ideally-placed seat in an organisation with an overview of transport policies and a hotline to TfL, not to mention other providers of rail services into London. Minutes from TravelWatch’s board meeting in May this year state that Boris Johnson wrote to the Chair to reiterate his belief that the committee should be rolled into the London Assembly.

TravelWatch also questioned the removal of bendy buses, one of Boris’s key election promises.

The London Assembly review focuses heavily on the cost-savings that could be made by abolishing TravelWatch, costs which they believe are unrealistic and don’t take into account the impact on consumers. Tom Edwards, the BBC’s transport correspondent also pointed out that Passenger Focus are not currently set up to deal with Oyster complaints, funding of which would certainly lessen any cost-savings made.

Jo deBank, communications officer for TravelWatch said:

‘An independent, non-party political voice for the passenger is crucial. London has had independent representation for many, many years and this is an important contributory factor as to why we Londoners enjoy better transport than other cities.’

We’d quite like to keep our independent representation but it’s looking increasingly as though we won’t be allowed to.

Photo by Joep R

Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Report an error

  • http://twitter.com/ianvisits IanVisits

    It’s worth remembering that TravelWatch is funded by the London Assembly and its board appointed by the Assembly.

    It might be arguable that having it as a defined organisation is a good thing, but it is not as independent of political interference as suggested above.

    If it does vanish into the mauls of the London Assembly though, there is nothing theoretically stopping a genuinely independent body being set up by other people which builds up the necessary reputation to have its inquisitive eye given the seriousness they merit.

  • London TravelWatch

    It is true that we are funded by the London Assembly and report our performance to the Transport Committee quarterly, but we have a distinct identity and operate independently from them. London TravelWatch represents transport users and passengers
    specifically and can take a long-term view of particular issues.

    However, London TravelWatch was set up by Parliament, which means we have a statutory role and HAVE to be consulted on closures, major changes, future services, new bus routes, timetables etc. Our official role means we have a direct influence on decision-making and transport policy in London.

    While there is nothing to stop a new, independent body existing, transport providers would not have to take their views into account or consult with them formally.

  • London TravelWatch

    It is true that we are funded by the London Assembly and report our performance to the Transport Committee quarterly, but we have a distinct identity and operate independently from them. London TravelWatch represents transport users and passengers
    specifically and can take a long-term view of particular issues.

    However, London TravelWatch was set up by Parliament, which means we have a statutory role and HAVE to be consulted on closures, major changes, future services, new bus routes, timetables etc. Our official role means we have a direct influence on decision-making and transport policy in London.

    While there is nothing to stop a new, independent body existing, transport providers would not have to take their views into account or consult with them formally.

  • Guest

    London TravelWatch has become a very discredited organisation: its Chair and Chief Executive have no knowledge of public transport and as such are overreliant on their officers – there is “authority inversion” rather than leadership from the front.

    In south London, TravelWatch publically endorsed a TfL plan which will see stations lose all their Victoria/London Bridge trains in 2012: yet in private TravelWatch staff expressed clear doubts as to the accuracy of TfL’s costs and modellings used in the TfL plan yet kept their opposition quiet. This shows at best cowardice and at worst duplicity: particularly as TravelWatch did complete U-turns on their position about specific stations.

    I have also seen evidence where senior TravelWatch staff mock the concerns of stakeholders,

    Part of the problem is that TravelWatch is part of the GLA family and has become far too close to people like TfL, to the extent it is willing to publically endorse plans it knows in private to be wrong.  It lacks the passion or committment to advocacy and seems to adopt a view that deep down the transport industry knows best.
    Far from being independent it is another GLA quango.

    Whilst there are real debates to be had as to why London needs a watchdog this is separate from keeping TravelWatch from going. This watchdog is politicised but without the accountability of an elected politician: the worst of both worlds.

    • Northern line user

      If you have “seen evidence where senior TravelWatch staff mock the concerns of stakeholders” Why not let us see it as well. Its a serious, and relevant charge you make; you need to support it with more than assertion.

  • Guest

    London TravelWatch has become a very discredited organisation: its Chair and Chief Executive have no knowledge of public transport and as such are overreliant on their officers – there is “authority inversion” rather than leadership from the front.

    In south London, TravelWatch publically endorsed a TfL plan which will see stations lose all their Victoria/London Bridge trains in 2012: yet in private TravelWatch staff expressed clear doubts as to the accuracy of TfL’s costs and modellings used in the TfL plan yet kept their opposition quiet. This shows at best cowardice and at worst duplicity: particularly as TravelWatch did complete U-turns on their position about specific stations.

    I have also seen evidence where senior TravelWatch staff mock the concerns of stakeholders,

    Part of the problem is that TravelWatch is part of the GLA family and has become far too close to people like TfL, to the extent it is willing to publically endorse plans it knows in private to be wrong.  It lacks the passion or committment to advocacy and seems to adopt a view that deep down the transport industry knows best.
    Far from being independent it is another GLA quango.

    Whilst there are real debates to be had as to why London needs a watchdog this is separate from keeping TravelWatch from going. This watchdog is politicised but without the accountability of an elected politician: the worst of both worlds.

  • http://twitter.com/darryl1974 darryl1974

    London Travelwatch hasn’t helped itself, thanks to the antics of Boris-backing ex-chair Brian Cooke (last seen chairing a “stakeholders forum” for Southeastern where the Olympic rail cuts were revealed to a select few).  

    My own experiences as a passenger haven’t been great; two years ago, when asking why Network Rail closed two rail lines through Greenwich and Blackheath on the same weekend the Jubilee Line was closed through Greenwich, it took six months for a reply and the answer came back that they believed TfL were blameless and “Network Rail told us they work hard to avoid such clashes, and we believe them”.  The only sensible response to that, frankly, is “bollocks do they”. Even my placid local MP doesn’t buy that, but London Travelwatch did.

    But ever since the Assembly’s been breathing down their necks, they’ve been a lot more proactive in talking to people on social media rather than the closed world of rail user groups and local council officers. If this is a fresh start, let London Travelwatch continue.

    A further point – sadly, the London Assembly believes London’s National Rail users – essentially, most of south and north-east London – aren’t worthy of their representation. Why should London’s National Rail users believe Assembly members are worthy of their votes, or their £53k/year salaries, especially after the debacle of the Blackfriars Bridge walkout?

←
→