Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

London mayor Sadiq Khan backs calls for Parliamentary inquiry into the Garden Bridge

London Mayor Sadiq Khan

 London Mayor Sadiq Khan has backed calls for a new Parliamentary or National Audit Office probe into the millions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money spent on the Garden Bridge.

Speaking at Mayor’s Question Time yesterday (20 July), Khan said his administration had carried out exhaustive scrutiny into the aborted Heatherwick-designed project and pointed out that central government had committed £9 million of underwriting to the scheme.

This cash, Khan noted, had been promised more recently than money from London taxpayers, against strong advice from top civil servants at the Department for Transport (DfT).

A total of £60 million of public money was committed to the Garden Bridge, which was scrapped in August last year, with half coming from the DfT and half from Transport for London (TfL). Despite the fact that construction never began, the total bill to public purse is expected to be around £46million.

Calls for a Parliamentary inquiry have been made in the past few weeks by MPs such as shadow communities secretary Andrew Gwynne, Lib Dem leader Vince Cable and Labour MP for Vauxhall Kate Hoey.

Responding to a question from Labour London Assembly member Tom Copley, a long-time critic of the Garden Bridge, Khan confirmed there was no chance of this money being recovered.

‘The bad news is that the money, authorised under direction by the previous mayor, has been spent,’ he said. ‘Previously, City Hall has done a lot of work in relation to the [inquiry] work the Oversight committee has done, TfL has done a lot of work, there’s the work Margaret Hodge did.

‘Central government authorised the spending of a considerable amount of money as recently as last year against the advice of the [DfT] permanent secretary so if the Public Accounts Committee or the NAO was to look into this, we would provide all the assistance that they wanted.’

Khan also said that some details of charity The Garden Bridge Trust’s spending had been revealed though his intervention along with the recently-published minutes of the Trust’s board meetings.

And he said he expected ‘full transparency’ from the Trust as it winds up over the next few weeks including a line-by-line account of all its spending – something promised by the Trust’s chair Mervyn Davies in a letter to Khan sent last August.

Speaking afterwards, Copley said: ‘The failed Garden Bridge project is not just a London scandal, it’s a national scandal. The DfT provided public money for the project alongside TfL, and we already know that civil servants who were reluctant to support the project were overruled by ministers.

‘The London Assembly will continue to scrutinise the project, but it’s time Parliament got involved as well. I’m pleased the Mayor has indicated that he would be in favour of this.’





Readers' comments (3)

  • Phil Parker

    What took Khan so long?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's all too easy to associate the less salubrious antics of the garden bridge promoters primarily with the Hon Boris Johnson MP, but in all fairness the behaviour of another of the so-called 'great and the good' - the current editor of the Evening Standard - should surely also be reviewed.
    And lest anyone should think this could take the heat off Mr Johnson, Chis Patten's thoughts on him, on BBC Newsnight a couple of days ago, should be prescribed viewing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Both Boris Johnson and Sadiq Kahn have reiterated that many reports and investigations into this saga have been carried out. Boris Johnson in particular seemed to use this as some kind of defence during his reply to the GLA’s Oversight and Scrutiny Committee. What I find bewildering is that these reports and the subsequent release of the Trust minutes by TfL expose some very serious failings(as reported in the AJ) yet it would seem that this is inconsequential and the fact that scrutiny has been carried out is enough alone. It’s as if there is a series of tick boxes on a cover sheet somewhere that shows that due diligence has been undertaken but nobody in authority has the time or inclination to actually read the contents. This scrutiny is irrelevant unless action is then taken to rectify any mistakes or wrongdoing exposed. These investigations need to be brought to a conclusion to prevent it ever happening again, to allow the law of the land to prevail, and to at least attempt to rescue or claw back as much of the public money as possible. Just a quick search on twitter, or reading of comments on the Guardian online, shows how much of a bad taste this has left in terms of public opinion – and many, in a roundabout way, blame the construction industry for wasting public money on fees alone, they blame Architects and Engineers. Unless this matter is brought to the right conclusion in the right theatre the damage done to our industry may last a generation. This project being led by a Charity, funded by both Government and Transport for London falls between at least 3 areas of accountability and is prone to falling between the gaps. Both an NAO and a Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry will highlight further what is already known but neither will have the teeth to deal with what may be exposed. More boxes ticked on that cover sheet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.