The Socialist Alliance AGM will debate a resolution opposing Congestion Charges. JOHN BULAITIS argues it should be rejected. IT IS STILL early days, but the first results of Congestion Charges (CC) in Central London have shown how much the quality of life is improved if car journeys are reduced and public transport improved.
It has been more pleasant to get around; safer to cross the road or ride a bike. Three hundred extra buses were simultaneously introduced and journeys are now relatively quicker and more reliable.
The response from Londoners has been overwhelmingly positive, even from many who had doubts and misgivings about the scheme. The predicted chaos and technical problems did not develop. Neither did the mass opposition' promised by Miss MoneyPenny.
The fact that the debate over CC has been dominated by how it affects car drivers is testimony to the success of the powerful road lobby.
This lobby lacks social responsibility, resists paying the cost of roads or the environmental damage road transport causes, and will not recognise the damaging effects of the car on the health and safety of pedestrians or those living in city centres. It is truly a case of the 'unreasonable in pursuit of the unbreathable', as Oscar Wilde might have put it.
In last month's Socialist Resistance, Phil Ward opposed the introduction of CC calling it an 'attack on the working class'. He has also claimed that CC increases inequality' A similar position has been taken by the SWP. During the Hackney mayoral campaign, Paul Foot called CC a 'tax on the poor'.
The problem with these arguments is that they confuse the 'working class and the 'poor' with the car-driver. The rights of private vehicle drivers to use the roads has to be balanced with the rights of the pedestrian to cross them safely, the right of access to public transport and the right of everyone to live in a safe, quality environment.
Socialists should not align themselves with those with the loudest voice and sharpest elbows but weigh up the benefits or disadvantages to different sections, especially vulnerable and ignored sections, of the working class.
Firstly, there is the simple fact that the poor, especially in London, do not have cars. The Government's Social Exclusion Unit reports that two-thirds of low-income families do not have a car. You only have to get on a London bus and look around to confirm this. The majority of passengers will be women, ethnic minorities and old people.
Ask them, while they are stuck on a bus snarled up in traffic jams or behind a car parked in the bus lane, whether CC is an 'attack on the working class' or is going to 'hit the poor hardest'. And even if we turn to those sections of lower-paid workers who do own cars, the surveys all show that they do not take them into Central London on a daily basis. The statistics are that 88% of those who drive into the centre are from the richest 50% of households.
Secondly, some socialists are failing to take up the big questions such as pollution, safety and the damaging effects of the car-culture. Who suffers most from car pollution and traffic accidents? Again, research shows that .... it is the poorest sections of the working class. The Institute of Public Policy Research and Imperial College report that 'children living in deprived areas [where car ownership is below average] are far more likely to be pedestrian casualties than their more fortunate counterparts The Guardian reports (21 May 2002), 'bad air quality due to traffic pollution is more likely in poor neighbourhoods, triggering asthma attacks and exacerbating the heart and lung diseases that are also prevalent in these areas. In this respect, the headline in last month's Socialist Resistance, 'Congestion charging gets up your nose!', contains one word too many: 'charging' Thirdly, describing CongestionCharging as a 'regressive tax' is only partially correct. Not only will the car-less poor pay nothing, but there is also an element of redistribution in CC. From the money collected, an extra £84 million will be invested in improv•••• e .... • •• Are their journeys really necessary? ing buses, £36 million into road safety schemes, £4 million on closed circuit cameras as deterrents to violence on buses and £6 million on school transport.
All of these are tangible benefits to the poorer sections of society and those sections less likely to own cars.
These are of course relatively minor reforms. Socialists stand for a free, integrated, massively expanded, flexible and environmentally friendly public transport system.
Together with education encouraging social responsibility, better design of integrated living and working spaces to reduce the need to travel, the use of the private car could be massively reduced.
Livingstone's package is nevertheless a series of reforms, within the strictly limited powers he has at his disposal. In effect, he is seeking to raise revenue to improve public transport, particularly bus transport finance which is not forthcoming from central government.
Socialists do not oppose reforms that lead to concrete advances for working class people even if they remain in the context of capitalism.
This does not mean that the scheme does not have its problems. The question of nurses and other essential workers working unsocial hours is one question that needs looking at.
Unions should be fighting for employers to pay the charge for such workers who have to use their cars to get to work.