Phil Ward replies My technical criticism of the CC was of the number plate recognition system.
I wrote in the last issue of SR:
"The predicted 25,000 daily blurred images are to be checked manually by a few dozen people, employed by the private company, Capita. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the automatic system and it is likely that thousands will be incorrectly charged, up to £140 if you pay 4 weeks late."
This was based on the Guardian's estimate of a 10% failure rate and 250,000 cars entering/leaving the zone a day. In the first week the numbers entering have been smaller, although they are rising day by day.
And we must distinguish between numbers crossing the zone boundary (you have to pay to get out as well and the numbers paying. The former includes significant exemptions (and reduced charges of 10% for residents).
In fact, with smaller numbers crossing the zone (100,000 paid the charge on the first day, and about 8,000 didn't), the number of technical failures at first is likely to be smaller than 25,000, but all number plates have to be checked, not just those of people who are paying or should pay the charge.
I don't know how many failures there have been, or how many have been sorted out.
Now these failures and the fines (15,000 in the first two days, according to the Guardian) could accumulate and make it more difficult to apply environmentally friendly traffic control measures (even ones that promote equality, rather than inequality) in future.
That is my first, subsidiary, political objection. My second objection is that on a point of principle, I do not support environmental control measures that increase inequality (except, possibly, a charge on carrier bags, as in Ireland.)
I had the opportunity to see Livingstone defend his positions on London TV. I don't doubt his sincerity and his bravery. His political openness and willingness to discuss things without resort to spin are refreshing and were reflected in the reception he got at the Hyde Park rally on Saturday.
His openness has other advantages as well: on TV he conceded both my arguments on the CC. Firstly, he agreed that, if the congestion charge fails for technical, legal or unpopularity reasons, it would be a disaster for environmental politics. Secondly, he agreed the point about inequality.
He argued that he had tried to negotiate concessions for groups of workers, such as emergency services, teachers, health workers etc. and he said that he was trying to get more concessions.
Some of the concessions already in existence involve public sector employers paying the CC, a large chunk of which will go to Capita.
Livingstone also said that congestion charging was not his preferred option, but that he was prevented for legal reasons from implementing what he wanted (which I presume would have been cuts in public transport fares, amongst other things).
Livingstone at least has the merit of being honest. But his approach is the classic reformist one. Ultimately it is self-defeating, so for example, the more concessions for different groups of workers Livingstone negotiates, the more people will be using the zone.
But, more importantly, he never considered organising a fight - building a mass movement - to take on the government's failures to deal with congestion/Green House Gas emissions and to fight to defend public transport, reduce fares, pedestrianise large swathes of central London etc.
I want to say two more things about the CC, on civil liberties and the state. The CC cameras can be used to track people and thereby represent an intrusion on personal privacy. Secondly, the fines, when unpaid, necessarily involve the police, who thereby gain extra powers and control.
I think we should oppose the CC also because of these intrusions and extra control. At least a million hospital patients, or relatives visiting patients in the six major hospitals within the Congestion Charge Zone are likely to fall victim to the f5 charge every year, according to pressure group London Health Emergency.
The hospitals affected are UCLH Great Ormond Street, Moorfields Eye Hospital, Bart's, Guy's and Thomas's. While people with registered disabilities can claim a reduction on the charge, there is no exemption for visitors attending the bed-side of relatives or for friends or neighbours driving patients with mobility prob lems to outpatient clinics.
NHS Trusts have complained that they will have to administer any exemption scheme themselves, while all revenues flow through Capita to Transport for London.
page 19 of the scan
claust res stance March 2003 19