Report to the Assembly on the Mayor’s

8/14/2019 Report to the Assembly on the Mayors

1/40


2/40

PROTECTING PUBLIC SERVICES

The Mayor has reduced the amount of council tax precept for the

Metropolitan Police by 16.4million.2 We have restored that cut in ourbudget amendment.

The Liberal Democrats fully support the overall approach in MPA/MPSDraft Policing London Business Plan 2010-13 and believe there should beno cuts in overall expenditure. However within the overall budget, webelieve that additional resources should be directed to front line policing,funded from reductions in expenditure that we consider unnecessary.Our proposals (appendix 1) are backed up by detailed calculations (seenotes), which use figures taken from the Mets own published costings.We are happy for our calculations to be scrutinised by the MPA/MPS toconfirm their accuracy

Specifically, we propose:

To reverse the 5% cut in Borough Devolved Budgets, puttingmoney back into front-line policing;

To make tackling gun and knife crime one of the highest priorities,in particular by funding 246 extra officers in the Boroughs with thehighest incidence of gun and knife crime;

To provide embroidered numerals on police epaulettes, and namebadges, to ensure that officers, PCSOs and Special Constables maybe easily identified by the public; and

To expand the Paladin team to allow increased policing of childtrafficking.

We propose that these costs be met by cutting unnecessary expenditurein the police service. Senior officers should use public transport rather

than chauffeur-driven limousines unless it is essential for operationalpurposes, and should not use first or business class when flying on Metbusiness. We believe that a major reduction in the Mets Directorate ofPublic Affairs would have no impact on Londons policing, neither wouldreductions by a third in the Mets use of consultants.

[See appendix 1 for further detail]

Sustaining Londons emergency service

2 See note 9, p.11


3/40

The main threat for future years to the London Fire and EmergencyPlanning Authority is the uncertainty about government funding.However LFEPAs reserves of 27.2million are excessive, sufficient tomeet even the most pessimistic of the Mayors targets as far ahead as2014. Officers at LFEPA have reported:

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authoritytakes a generally prudent approach to cost estimation andbudgeting indicates that a general reserve level of 2.5%(10.9m based upon the current forecast budget and costing for2010/11) can currently be deemed to be adequate

(LFEPA 2010-11 Budget Report, 16 November 2009)

Some of LFEPAs excess reserves of 27.2million can be used to supportthe 2010-11 capital budget, but the majority can be prudently releasedto reduce the call on the precept this year.

Some additional capital spending is cost effective. Last December theMayor launched the Building Energy Efficiency Programme with muchmedia hype and claims that 20 fire stations were in line for energysaving capital works. However within weeks LFEPA had decided to de-prioritise the scheme and no project is included in the capitalprogramme until 2012/13 - after the end of the Mayors term of office.These works can have a relatively fast pay-back period for the initialoutlay, and will significantly improve the Brigades work to cut carbonemissions. We propose that these works be reinstated.

There are Grade II listed cottages at the rear of West Hampstead FireStation. They are in poor condition and have been identified as At Riskby English Heritage. A Brigade scheme to refurbish them will provideaccommodation for fire-fighters and provide rental income as well assatisfy the Brigades statutory obligations to preserve the buildings.Nevertheless, the Conservative leadership of the Authority refuse to act,unless and until the local authority takes enforcement action (at a costto their local taxpayers). We do not accept such shoddy behaviour froma public authority and would pay for the vital work to be undertaken.


A better way to go

We propose to change the priorities within Transport for Londonsbudget, move ahead with important initiatives and reduce TfLs12million share of the precept to 1million. This will improve the levelof services for Londoners and provide value for money for passengersand taxpayers.

The highlight of our package is the One Hour bus ticket, a fair way tocharge passengers who have to take more than one bus in order to


4/40

reach their destination. Tube passengers already enjoy this ability and itis discrimination towards bus passengers that they have to pay twice forwhat could be a relatively short journey. The One Hour bus ticket willalso encourage more people out of their cars and onto public transportinstead, which will help the environment and relieve congestion.

We want the Mayor and TfL to be more imaginative in transportschemes. As a first step in rolling out orbital express bus routes, we willfund Ealing and Brent Councils' "Fastbus" proposal for an express routeconnecting Wembley and Ealing with the Park Royal business park. Thisservice, which is strongly supported by the local councils and businessesin the area, will act as a pilot for other such routes across London,getting people out of cars and onto public transport

Our other spending plans include investment in:

Cycle recycling schemes in 3 boroughs. We would supportschemes similar to that run by Waltham Forest Council, whichrecycles used bikes and sells them on at sensible prices. Theseschemes would also provide vocational training for local people.

Measures to increase walking, demonstrating how easy it is towalk around London so reducing pressure on the public transportnetwork and providing a healthy form of exercise. This money willbe in addition to the spending already being planned by Transportfor London which is tiny, in comparison with other budgets.

We plan to pay for this expenditure by making a more determined attackon fare evasion, currently costing TfL 70million a year. The aim wouldbe to reduce this by 10.2million, spending an additional 3million onrevenue inspectors. Much of the remaining savings would be made byremoving free travel for staff nominees, halving current bonus packages,and by delaying the withdrawal of bendy buses from their existingroutes this year.


Cutting wasteful expenditure

In the core Greater London Authority budget we note that theMayors budget for external communication shows little real reductiondespite promises: nearly one in five people in City Hall (excludingAssembly staff) now work on presenting a positive image of the Mayor.

The promise to cut press officers has proved hollow. In 2008 there were15 press officers in the then Mayor's media relations team, today thereare 14.8.3 Boris Johnson has not delivered on his promise to cut

3Media relations. 2008 staffing in then mayor's media relations team: 15. (Source:Mayor's question 1872/2009). October 2009 press staffing: 14.8 fte. Source: Mayor's


5/40

expenditure at City Hall, which rises to 134.7million next yearcompared to 125.6million under his predecessor.4

We propose to cut wasteful expenditure at City Hall, including cancellingplans to hold yet more non-statutory Peoples Question Times. We will

also increase efficiency, reduce the reliance on temporary staff whichshould be coming down as the Organisation for Delivery programme iscompleted, and reduce by 10% the level of cash reserves which totalledjust over 24million last year.

Clean Air in central London

Urgent action needs to be taken now to tackle the pollution that isimpacting Londoners health. Londons air quality is the worst in the UK,and one of the worst of Europes capital cities. Air quality in Londonbreaches national and European limit values for particulates (PM10) andnitrogen dioxide (NO2). Current levels of air pollution cause over 3,000premature deaths a year and affect hundreds of thousands more particularly the very young, the elderly and those with conditions suchas asthma. Road transport is a major contributor to air pollution,particularly older diesel vehicles.

With the outer Low Emission Zone now in place, the focus should bewhere the problem is worst, in central London and around arterial roads.Therefore we propose to fund a feasibility study into introducing one ormore inner clean air zones. Not only will this improve the health of

Londoners, it will ensure that London has cleaner air in time for theOlympics in 2012.


Effective scrutiny for Londoners

This year the London Assemblys budget is separately identified andthe Assembly has proposed reductions so spending is effectively frozen a real terms efficiency gain. It remains important that the Assembly

continues to examine its effectiveness and deliver value-for-moneypublic accountability.

Preparing for the future

The London Development Agency continues to make no call on theprecept, but this does not mean that its budget should be ignored.

We are concerned that the LDA is planning to spend money on investingin financial support to Academy Schools particularly since under 16s

question 2936/20094 Council tax precept income: 2010/11 922 million; 2007/08 882 million


6/40


7/40

APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals

Increased expenditure - LiberalDemocrat proposals


8/40

Additionalcost

2010/11

Explanatory notes

Additional money for all Londonboroughs

All borough commanders have devolvedbudgets and are being asked by the Met toreduce their expenditure by 5% in 2010/11.We believe this could impact on front linepolicing and propose that devolved budgetsshould not be reduced.

8.9 million Note 1

Embroidered numerals and namebadges for all officers

Recent events have clearly demonstratedthe need for all officers to be easily identifiedby the public. The Met currently use numeralpins, which are easily dislodged. The Met areproposing to introduce embroiderednumerals for just some of their officers, butour proposals would provide embroiderednumerals for all Met officers. We would alsoprovide name badges for every personemployed by the Met.

450,000 Note 2

Additional police for boroughs with thehighest levels of gun and knife crime

A number of boroughs in London suffer fromhigh levels of knife and gun crime. We wouldfund an additional police officer in everyward in the 10 boroughs with the highestlevels of gun and knife crime (a total of 13boroughs overall). A key part of their rolewould be to engage with young people.

14.76 million Note 3

Additional police to deal with childtrafficking

The practice of trafficking children to the UKto be used as domestic slaves (or worse) istotally unacceptable. A small team (knownas Paladin) consisting of police andimmigration officers do excellent work tryingto stem the flow. We propose to dramaticallyexpand the Paladin team, to enable moreentry points to London to be policed.

1.27 million Note 4


9/40

Total additional expenditure 2010/11 25.38million


10/40

APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposalscont..

Increased expenditure funded by:

Liberal Democrat proposals for savings inthe MPA

IdentifiedSavings2010/11

Explanatorynotes

Limousines and Chauffeurs

Senior Met officers are provided with a carand chauffeur to take them to and from workand meetings. The Commissioner has statedthat there is a distance growing between[the police] and the public. We believe that

this distance is more likely to be reduced ifsenior officers used public transport like therest of Londoners. We would thereforeabolish cars and chauffeurs for all seniorofficers with the exception of those officerswho require cars for security purposes.


Flights

Senior Met officers are entitled to use FirstClass and Business Class travel when they

are travelling on Met business. We believethis is totally inappropriate at a time whenboroughs are being starved of cash for frontline policing. We would ban the use of allfirst and business class flights for all seniorofficers with the exception of those involvedin Specialist Operations.

0.57 million Note 6

Press officers

The Met employs 74 people within the

Directorate of Public Affairs, to deal with themedia. We believe this to be excessive andwould reduce the staffing by 50%.


Consultants

The Met spends a disproportionate amountof its budget on consultants, which webelieve cannot be justified. Our proposalswould reduce the amount of money spent onconsultants by 40%.

3.76 million Note 8

Add


11/40

The Mayor allocates a proportion of the GLAprecept income to the Met each year.Despite this income increasing by 7 millionin 2010/11, the Mayor has reduced theamount given to the MPA by 16.4 million.

We believe this is unacceptable and shouldbe restored immediately which would ineffect increase Met income by 16.4 million.

16.4 million Note 9

Total available to spend in 2010/11 25.38million


Explanatory notes to our expenditure proposals

Note 1The MPA/MPS Draft Supporting Financial Information to the PolicingLondon Business Plan 2010-13 assumes a reduction in the all 32Boroughs Devolved Budgets of 5%. We would remove the need for thisreduction, by providing an additional 8.9 million of funding.

Note2 Staffing requirements in the draft Policing London Business Plan 2010-13, for the year

2010/11:

Staffing requirements (excl.Police Staff)

Budget 2010/11

Police Officers 32,865

Recruits 264PCSOs 4,716Special Constables 5,330Traffic Wardens 219TOTAL 43,394

Staffing requirements Budget 2010/11Police Staff 14,944

TOTAL MPS STAFFING2010/11

58,338

The cost for a set of epaulettes is 2.02 (MPS figures Jan 2010). We would equipevery police officer, recruit, PCSO, Special Constable and Traffic Warden with twosets of epaulettes. We would also allow for 100% turnover in staff positions eachyear, due to movement of staff between Operational Command Units. The costs areas follows:

Number of people requiring epaulettes 43,394

Number of sets of epaulettes required 86,788Cost per set of epaulettes 2.02

Total cost of epaulettes 175,312Allowance for 100% turnover of staff 175,312


12/40

TOTAL COST 350,624We would also equip every person employed by the MPS with two name badges, atan estimated cost of 0.80 each. The costs would be as follows:

Number of people requiring name

badges

58,338

Number of badges required 116,676

Add 5% buffer 122,500Cost per badge 0.80

TOTAL COST 98,000

TOTAL COST FOR BADGES AND EPAULETTES = 448,624


13/40


Note3 Borough Name 2008

Population**

Gun Enabled CrimeNumberof MPSofficers

inBoroug

h

Number of

Wards

Incidentsin the 12months toNov 09*

Rateper1,000people

Rank

Lambeth 274,500 242 0.88 1 1021 21

Lewisham 261,600 229 0.88 2 673 18

Southwark 278,000 224 0.81 3 947 21

Hackney 212,200 162 0.76 4 767 19

Haringey 226,200 159 0.70 5 716 19Waltham Forest 223,200 149 0.67 6 573 20

Brent 270,600 175 0.65 7 706 21

Newham 249,500 132 0.53 8 791 20

Barking &Dagenham

168,900 88 0.52 9 442 17

Greenwich 222,900 112 0.50 10 701 17

Borough Name 2008Population

**

Knife Crime Numberof MPSofficers

in

Borough

Number of

Wards

Incidents

in the 12months toNov 09*

Rate

per1,000people

Rank

Southwark 278,000 778 2.80 1 947 21

Newham 249,500 670 2.69 2 791 20

Waltham Forest 223,200 576 2.58 3 573 20

Lambeth 274,500 667 2.43 4 1021 21

Hackney 212,200 480 2.26 5 767 19

Barking &Dagenham

168,900 371 2.20 6 442 17

Islington 190,900 403 2.11 7 697 16

Haringey 226,200 476 2.10 8 716 19

Westminster 236,000 493 2.09 9 1619 20

Tower Hamlets 220,500 443 2.01 10 793 17

*Source: MPS Crime Mapping website 11 Jan 2010

**Source: ONS mid-year population estimates -nomisweb.com 11 Jan 2010

Shaded boroughs are those that appear in both top 10 lists

Total number of wards to be allocated extra police officers = 246Cost of a police constable = 60,000

TOTAL COST OF EXTRA POLICE OFFICERS = 14.76 million


14/40


15/40


Note4

We propose to expand the existing Paladin team by funding the following additionalposts:

Cost includingoverheads

3 Detective Sergeant 216,0008 Detective Constables 480,000

Total 696,000

In addition, we have allowed 574,000 to be used for appropriate accommodation forthe team in key locations.

TOTAL PALADIN COST: 1,270,000

Explanatory notes on identified savings

Note5

The table below illustrates how 1.6 million could be saved by abolishing cars andchauffeurs for all senior officers with the exception of officers who require these forsecurity purposes.

Cars for MPS ACPO officers to be abolished

No.Cost pa

Totalcost

No of cars (average cost over 3 years =31,000) 32 10,333 330,667

No of 'cash equivalent' 2 10,333 20,667

Insurance pa 32 325 10,400

Petrol - two fill ups a week 32 7,800 249,600

Service 32 1,000 32,000

Driver/on costs 24 40,500 972,000

Total identified savings1,615,33

3


16/40

Note6

We would ban the use of all first and business class flights for all senior officers withthe exception of those involved in Specialist Operations. The table below showsMPS expenditure on travel in 2008/9:

Business Groups Economy Business

First GrandTotal

Funded by

ExternalSources

Cost toMet

Cost toMet

excludingeconomy

CentralOperations

48,454 47,583 13,080 109,118 50,846 58,272 9,818

D/ Comm'sPortfolio

36,226 25,223 8,450 69,899 0 69,899 33,673

Public Affairs 908 1,041 0 1,948 0 1,948 1,040

Information 25,668 7,625 0 33,292 0 33,292 7,624

HR and LogServices

17,807 608 911 19,326 0 19,326 1,519

MPA 240 0 0 240 0 240 0Olympics Security 8,662 69,490 0 78,152 78,152 0 0

Resources 5,699 0 0 5,699 0 5,699 0

Specialist Crime 338,429 437,244 6,309 781,982 2,495 779,487 441,058

Territorial Policing 368,373 118,882 0 487,255 44,444 442,811 74,438

Grand Total 850,466 707,696 28,7504,961,780

3,548,676

1,410,974

569,170

Lib Dem identifiedsavings

569,170


17/40


Note 7 Reduction of 50% in staff employed who deal with the media. The detailed figuresare as follows:-

MPA/MPS DraftPolicing LondonBusiness Plan2010-13

Liberal Democratproposals

'000 '000Pay

Police Staff Pay 3,799 1,900

Overtime 122 61

Total Pay and Overtime 3,921 1,961

Running expenses

Employee related expenditure 72 36Premises costs 17 10

Transport costs 38 19

Supplies and services 3,036 2,024

Total Running expenses 3,163 2,089

Total Expenditure 7,084 4,050

Less income -226 -226

Net expenditure 6,858 3,824

Lib Dem identified savings 3,035

Note8

In 2008/9 the MPS spent 9.4 m on consultants (MQT 2350/2009). A reduction of 40%in this expenditure would result in a saving of3.76 million.

Note9 The Mayors draft budget shows (p. 66, para 8.4) the Council Tax for Police Services

as follows:

2009-10 m 2010-11 m

MPA Budget Requirement 2,640.3 2,673.3General Government Funding -1,978.3 -2,027.7

Council Tax Amount for PoliceServices

662.0 645.6

This shows a decrease of 16.4 million in the amount given to the MPA from theMayors Council Tax Precept from 2009/10 to 2010/11.


18/40

APPENDIX 2 LFEPA Budget Proposals


AdditionalCost2010-11

Explanatory Notes

Restore Building Energy EfficiencyProgramme to 2010-11 capitalprogrammeThis high-profile programme of energyefficiency measures at fire stations waslaunched by the Mayor in December 2009but was not progressed in 2010 under thedraft budget. We will reinstate it.

0.6million Note 1

West Hampstead Fire Station cottagesrefurbishmentWhen refurbished these listed cottages willbe available for accommodation for fire-fighters

0.7million Note 2

Total Increased expenditure 1.3million

Increased expenditure funded by:

Liberal Democrat Proposals for savingsin LFEPA Identifiedsavings2010-11

Explanatory note

Review training procurement expensesFurther soft market testing to better scopethe Future Options for Training results inlower cost falling in 2010-11

0.5million Note 3

Use of excess LFEPA reservesLFEPAs officers advise a prudent level ofGeneral Reserves for 2010-11 to be10.9million. However the Authority

currently anticipates holding far more by theend of 2009-10.

25.2million

Note 4

Total Savings 25.7million

Explanatory notes on identified savings

Note

1

The Mayor launched the Building Energy Efficiency Programmelast December with much media coverage and claims 20 firestations were in line for energy saving capital works. Howeverwithin weeks LFEPA has decided to de-prioritise the scheme and


19/40

no project is included in the capital programme until 2012/13 -after the end of the Mayors term of office. These works canhave a relatively fast pay-back period for the initial outlay, andwill significantly improve the Brigades work to cut carbonemissions.

Note2 There are Grade II listed cottages at the rear of WestHampstead Fire Station. They are in poor condition and havebeen identified as At Risk by English Heritage. They areintegral to the site so not saleable. Happily the Brigade haddeveloped a scheme to refurbish them to provideaccommodation for fire-fighters. Rental income provides asound return on the expenditure and the Brigades statutoryobligations to preserve the buildings would be satisfied.Nevertheless, the Conservative leadership of the Authorityrefuse to allow the scheme to proceed unless and until the localauthority takes enforcement action (at a cost to their localtaxpayers). We do not accept such shoddy behaviour from a

public authority.Note3

The Mayors draft budget includes a proposal for 950,000 inincreased back-office spend to support the procurement ofbrigade training. So far soft marketing has failed to providethe evidence to fully scope the likely outcome of the tendering.We believe further targeted soft market testing is requiredbefore beginning procurement. This will certainly reduce thecost falling in 2010-11 and potentially the overall cost.

Note4

LFEPA currently anticipates holding 38.1million by the end of2009-10. However officers advise a prudent level of GeneralReserves for 2010-11 to be 10.9million:

a generally prudent approach to costestimation and budgeting indicates that ageneral reserve level of 2.5% (10.9m basedupon the current forecast budget and costing for2010/11) can currently be deemed to beadequate(LFEPA 2010-11 Budget Report, 16 November 2009)

Unlike previous years, the Mayors budget this year makes nodrawing on these excessive reserves, preferring to use moreCouncil Tax. We believe these reserves should be used to fundLFEPA expenditure so that LFEPA would need a smaller draw on

the Council Tax precept. We would also use 2m of reserves tohelp fund LFEPAs capital programme, in preference to theMayors more expensive proposal to borrow the money.


20/40

LFEPA Balances from LFEPA Authority Budget report, FEP1455, 19 November 2009p46

Firefighter' Pension

PFI

LGPSPension

Contributions

Maintenance & Minor

Works

Sustainability

LondonResilience

General Total

'ms 'ms 'ms 'ms 'ms 'ms 'ms 'ms

Balances @ 31/03/07 2.021 17.816 1.485 2.000 3.692 2.933 35.132 65.079

Provisional Financing (1.485) (0.500) (2.037) (16.895) (20.916)

Pumping ImprovementProgramme (1.618) (1.618)

Provisional drawings (1.604) (1.604)

Excess PFI grant 2007-08 1.275 1.275

Approved Drawings (0.539) (0.539)

Interest Allocations 0.800 0.800

CAA/PFI Adj 0.031 0.031

Outturn - additional interestallocation

0.045 0.045

Outturn - specific 0.500 1.083 1.583

Outturn - general 7.402 7.402

Balances @ 31/03/08 2.021 18.818 0.000 1.500 2.088 1.980 25.131 51.538

Provisional Financing (0.250) (16.606) (16.856)

Pumping ImprovementProgramme

(1.580) (1.580)

Provisional drawings (1.547) (1.547)

Outturn 14.622 14.622Anticipated Balance @31/03/09

1.771 0.631 0.000 1.500 0.541 1.980 39.753 46.177

Provisional Financing (14.324) (14.324)

Outturn 12.655 12.655

Anticipated Balance @31/03/10

1.771 0.631 0.000 1.500 0.541 1.980 38.084 44.508


21/40

NB Since publication the 1.5m Maintenance & Minor Works reserve has been used to support the 2010-11 capitalprogramme.


22/40

APPENDIX 3 Transport for London Budget Proposals


Additionalcost

2010/11

Explanatory notes

Tackling Fare evasion

Fare evasion currently costs TfL around 70million per year. The Liberal Democrats believethat increasing the number of revenueprotection inspectors can significantly reducethis figure.

3 million Note 1

Introducing a Fastbus pilot

FastBus would transform travel in West London.It would be good for businesses at Park Royal,and would also provide a frequent and fastservice, principally for commuters, connectingrailway stations and releasing capacity oncentral London stations as well as reducing cartrips in the local area. This first route would actas a pilot for other areas.

1.3million

Note 2

A One Hour bus ticket for London

The One Hour bus ticket is a fair way to charge

passengers who have to take more than onebus in order to reach their destination. Tubepassengers already enjoy this service and it isdiscrimination towards bus passengers thatthey have to pay twice for what could be arelatively short journey. The One Hour busticket will also encourage more people out oftheir cars and onto public transport, whichwould help the environment and to relievecongestion.

25million Note 3

Pump prime a Cycle Recycling scheme in3 boroughs

Based on a successful scheme run by WalthamForest Council, this scheme is about recyclingused bikes and selling them on to others atsensible prices. We would run a similar schemein three additional boroughs to recycle usedbikes. This scheme would also assist withproviding vocational training in mechanics,retail and other useful skills for local people.

Other benefits of this scheme would includereducing carbon emissions, encouraging

0.3million

Note 4


23/40

healthy lifestyles and relieving congestion onour roads and other transport networks.

This money is in addition to the extra moneyfrom the Mayor to get people cycling in London

suburbs.

A major increase in funding for developingwalking in London with boroughs.

Despite recent mayoral announcements,information for walkers in London is notsufficient. Improving this will have manypositive effects, such as improving health ofLondoners by increasing exercise, improving

the air quality and relieving public transportpressure.

This would be done by providing people withmore information by the way of maps and moredetailed signage to help people find their wayaround without having to rely on just the tubemap.

1.8million

Note 5

Total additional expenditure 2010/11 31.4million

Increased expenditure funded by: Identified

Savings

2010/11

Explanatory notes

50% cut in bonus payments toCommissioner, Chief Officers and

Directors

In a time of recession with many peoplestruggling to make ends meet, the LiberalDemocrats believe it is the fair thing to do tocut the bonus budget.

2.7million Note 6

Increased fare revenue from betterenforcement

This will be the result of having moreenforcement officers, which would in turnincrease revenue from fares and from penaltycharges.

10.2million

Note 1also

Delayed withdrawal of bendy buses onexisting routes

18million Note 7


24/40


25/40

Note3

In the 3rd quarter of 2008/09 there were 102 million Pay As You Gobus journeys. The fares revenue was 79 million.

TfL estimate that 16% of such journeys involve using a second buswithin 60 minutes of the first. This accounts for 12.64 million of the

revenue. Worked out as an annual cost, this would come to 50.56million.

This figure does not, however, include any extra revenue, which webelieve will be generated for TfL, from additional passengers. Webelieve there will be a considerable shift from short car journeys toshort bus journeys due to this handy and cost effective new ticket.

The figure is calculated with a start date of September in the 2010/11,half way through the fiscal year.

16% of 79 million = 12.64 million

12.64 million x 4 (for estimated annual figure) = 50.56 million

50.56 million / 2 (for 6 months of the fiscal year 2010/11) = 25million (to the nearest million)

Note4

One quarter of all the adults in London own a bike, equating to over1.5million bikes. 40% of these bike owners havent used their bikes sofar in 2009 equating to over 600,000 unused bikes. 9% of theseowners have not used their bikes for over 5 years, equating to 137,000unused bikes in London. (Source You Gov poll for Sky 17 06 09)

This bike-recycling scheme is based on a successful scheme run by

Waltham Forest Council. The project is run by two part-time casualstaff, and supported by 20 volunteers.

The public, the Council and the police provide a steady stream ofbikes, which are re-built at the centre. The scheme recycles about 30bikes each month, and holds a bike sale on the first Saturday of everymonth, with bikes typically available for 45 for an adult bike and 20for childrens bikes. The centre runs a regular drop-in workshop and fora 3 donation the public can receive help from a professionalmechanic and have access to tools.

We would give 100,000 to set up and run similar projects to each of

the three boroughs to fund the scheme in its first year.

Note5

In 2008/09 TfL spent 9m on supporting walking initiatives in theboroughs. We believe a considerable boost for additional signage andmaps is needed to increase walking in the Capital.

Note6

In answer to MQT 2937/2009 5,341,140 was paid to this group of TfLemployees in 2008/09.


26/40

Note7

Bendy Bus Withdrawal timetable:

Single-deck buses took over from bendy buses on route 521 and 38 in2009. Routes 18 and 149 are scheduled to convert by the end of2010. The remaining routes - 12, 25, 29, 73, 207, 436 and 453 - will

convert by the end of 2011. (Source TfL Commissioners Report, 21stOctober 2009).

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3526/get/.LondonTravelWatch calculated the cost of withdrawing all Bendy Busesfrom service was estimated at 60m in 2008/09 prices.

LondonTravelWatch estimates that the replacement of bendy busescosts around 0.3 million per bus per year in additional costs. TfLestimate inflation in their recent Business Plan to be at 2.7% to bringthis figure to 0.308 million.

In order to run routes 18 and 149 reliably during the busiest periods atthe advertised frequencies, they each require a Peak VehicleRequirement of 32 and 27 respectively. (Source TfL).

Therefore, if we plan to delay the withdrawal of routes 18 and 149bendy buses in London, it would cost:

59 x 0.308 million = 18million (to nearest million)

Note8

Eliminating TfL Staff Nominee Travel

On the 28th January 2009, Mike Tuffrey AM asked the question(0089/2009) to the Mayor could you provide the annual cost to

TfL of providing free travel to the nominees of TfL employees.Answer from the Mayor:

Staff Travel passes are a long-standing non-contractual benefit for TfLstaff and are a key way of recruiting and retaining staff.

As of 20 January 2009, there were a total of 21,612 Oyster cardsissued to the nominees of employees*.

Any cost to TfL of providing free travel to nominees of TfL employeescannot be reliable estimated. The reason is that if nominees wereasked to pay for their travel then their travel patterns would

undoubtedly change significantly, but in a manner that cannot beaccurately predicted or costed.

*The above figure does not include Bus Operator Nominees or retirednominees, who are not TfL employees. But the total number doesincludes staff employed by Infracos such as Tubelines and other TUPEdstaff: which cannot be readily separated out.

If each nominee spent an average amount travel (lowest), ascalculated by London Living wage reporthttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/living-wage-2009.pdfof 26.76 a week.

For 46 weeks of year (excluding holidays) = 1230 per nominee
http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3526/get/http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/living-wage-2009.pdfhttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/living-wage-2009.pdfhttp://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3526/get/http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/living-wage-2009.pdfhttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/living-wage-2009.pdf


27/40


28/40

APPENDIX 4 Greater London Authority BudgetProposals


Liberal Democrat proposal Additionalcost

2010/11

Explanatory notes

Fund initial feasibility study of an innerLondon LEZ

Air pollution in London is the worst in the UK fordangerous airborne particles (PM10). London isnow also breaking health based EU limits forNitrogen Dioxide (NO2). We want to tackle theproblem, where its worst, in inner and centralLondon. There needs to be an inner LondonClean Air Zone which excludes the most pollutingvehicles from driving in the centre of town whereair pollution is worst. This will improve airquality, and improve the health and quality oflife of Londoners.

50,000

Total additional expenditure 2010/11 50,000

Savings identified in the GLA:


29/40


30/40

Note3

There is a statutory duty on the Mayor and Assembly to hold 2 PeoplesQuestion Time meetings a year. This Mayor has chosen to hold a rangeof public meetings, at which Assembly Members are generally notinvited to participate, sorely as means of promoting the Mayors

agenda. There is a budget of 30,000 each for four extra events ayear (http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=24666).

Note4

Reduce use of Temporary staff to their May 2008 levels. Annual spendtherefore 1,233,300 rather than 2,544,147. Saving 1,310,847.

3.1m has been spent on temporary staff (May 08-Aug 09). For theyear to August 2.5m was spent.

Numbers increased from 44 staff (May 08) to 73 staff (Aug 09)

Number of Temporary Staff employed bythe GLA per month

0

20

40

60

80

100

May-08

Jul-0

8

Sep-08

Nov-08

Jan-09

Mar-0

9

May-09

Jul-0

9NumberofTemporaryStaff

Background

Number of Temporary Agency Staff

Periodnumberper month

Expenditure permonth

May-08 44 102,774.97

Jun-08 53 133,957.80

Jul-08 77 222,885.93

Aug-08 62 124,064.85 Costs for a year

Sep-08 63 159,852.68 Sep-08 63 159,852.68

Oct-08 64 198,044.37 Oct-08 64 198,044.37

Nov-08 58 164,861.12 Nov-08 58 164,861.12

Dec-08 63 205,229.12 Dec-08 63 205,229.12

Jan-09 66 232,388.86 Jan-09 66 232,388.86

Feb-09 74 248,357.04 Feb-09 74 248,357.04

Mar-09 79 457,395.29 Mar-09 79 457,395.29

Apr-09 70 -121,094.96 Apr-09 70 -121,094.96

May-09 69 237,173.28 May-09 69 237,173.28

Jun-09 68 259,109.31 Jun-09 68 259,109.31

Jul-09 79 272,461.70 Jul-09 79 272,461.70

Aug-09 73 230,369.30 Aug-09 73 230,369.30Total 3,127,830.66 Total 2,544,147.1
http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=24666http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=24666


31/40

1

GLA Consultants & Temporary Agency Staff[Main question] 2952/2009; 14/10/2009Question by Mike TuffreyAt the time of submitting questions, I have not received the answer to my previous

questions (MQ2463/2009 and 2464/2009) which asked how much the GLA has spenton consultants and temporary agency staff since May 2008. Please make thisinformation available.Answer by Boris Johnson[]Temporary StaffIt has taken longer than anticipated to provide the information requested because atpresent the engagement of temporary agency staff on a short term basis (up to 4working weeks) is mainly a local management responsibility and as such there is nocentral record of the total number of temporary agency workers engaged at any onetime.The payment information held on the Authoritys accounting system has beenanalysed and I can advise that the number temporary agency staff employed permonth and payments made are as follows:[Numbers appear in table above]Notes:(1) The figures for March and April 2009 are affected by the accountingentries for year-end accruals, and therefore need to be taken together.(2) With the completion of the Organising for Delivery programme and theresumption of permanent recruitment, arrangements are now in hand toreduce the use of temporary agency staff.

Note5

The Greater London Authoritys Consolidated Budget and ComponentBudgets for 2009-10 estimated that at 31 March 2010 the generalbalance is expected to total some 3.4m (p.9). Budget 2009-10 netrevenue expenditure for 2009-10 was 60.4m excluding the OlympicFunding Agreement.

Note6

MD467 states at 3.11 The Authoritys general reserves totalled5.914m at 31 March 2009 and earmarked reserves totalled17.571m. Of this, 5.995m relates to the 2012 elections.http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20091109-md467-gla-budget.pdf
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/tuffreym.jsphttp://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/tuffreym.jsphttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20091109-md467-gla-budget.pdfhttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20091109-md467-gla-budget.pdfhttp://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/tuffreym.jsphttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20091109-md467-gla-budget.pdfhttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20091109-md467-gla-budget.pdf


32/40

PART B: Proposal to approve, with amendments, the DraftConsolidated Budget for the 2010-11 financial year for the

Greater London Authority and the Functional Bodies.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

FORMAL BUDGET AMENDMENT

1. The Mayors draft consolidated budget (together with the component

budgets comprised within it) for 2010-11 be amended by the

sum(s) shown in column number 3 of the table for each constituent

body, as set out and in accordance with the attached Schedule.

(These sums are the calculations under sections 85(4) to (8) of the

Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) which give rise to each

of the amounts mentioned in recommendations 2 and 3 below.)

2. The calculations referred to in recommendation 1 above, give rise

to a component budget requirement for 2010-11 for each

constituent body as follows:

Constituent body Component budget

requirement

Greater London Authority: Mayor of

London

121,534,753

Greater London Authority: London

Assembly

8,600,000

Metropolitan Police Authority 2,689,700,000

London Fire and Emergency Planning

Authority

412,900,000

Transport for London 1,000,000

London Development Agency 0

3. The component budget requirements shown in recommendation 2

above, give rise to a consolidated budget requirement for the

Authority for 2010-11 (shown at Line 55 in the attached Schedule)

of -

3,233,734,753

BUDGET RELATED MOTIONS

4. [WHERE APPLICABLE, INSERT ANY OTHER BUDGET RELATED

MOTIONS REQUIRED]

___________________________________________________________________________


33/40

NOTES:

a. A simple majority of votes cast by Assembly members is required toapprove any amendment to recommendations (1) to (3) aboveconcerning the Draft Consolidated Budget; abstentions are not

counted.b. To approve the Draft Consolidated Budget, without amendment, onlya simple majority of votes cast is required. Again, abstentions are notcounted.


34/40

SCHEDULE

Part 1: Greater London Authority: Mayor of London (Mayor) draftcomponent budget requirement calculations

NOTE: Amendments to the draft consolidated budget will take effect as follows.Where a figure is shown in column 3, the figure in column 2 is amended to thefigure in column 3. If no figure is shown in column 3, then the figure in column2 shall be taken to apply un-amended. If nil or 0 is shown in column 3,then the figure in column 2 is amended to nil.

1 2 3 4Line Mayors

proposalBudgetamendment

Description

(1) 342,300,000

340,792,353

estimated expenditure of the Mayor calculatedin accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act

(2) 500,000 500,000 estimated allowance for contingencies for theMayor under s85(4)(b) of the Act

(3) 5,000,000 5,000,000 estimated reserves to be raised for meetingfuture expenditure of the Mayor under s85(4)(c)of the Act

(4) 0 0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue accountdeficit of the Mayor under s85(4)(d) of the Act

(5) 347,800,000

345,942,353

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin s85(4) of the Act for the Mayor (lines (1) + (2)+ (3) + (4) above)

(6) -227,500,00

0

-227,800,000

estimate of Mayor's income calculated inaccordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act

(7) 5,800,000 3,042,400

estimate of Mayors reserves to be used inmeeting amounts in lines (1) and (2) aboveunder s85(5)(b) of the Act

(8) -221,700,0

00

-224,757,600

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin section 85(5) of the Act for the Mayor (lines(6) + (7))

(9) 126,100,000

121,534,75

3the component budget requirement for Mayor(being the amount by which the aggregate at (5)above exceeds the aggregate at (8) abovecalculated in accordance with section 85(6) ofthe Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the Mayor for 2010-11is: 121,534,753

[insert Line 9 figure]


35/40

Part 2: Greater London Authority: London Assembly (Assembly)draft component budget requirement calculations


1 2 3 4Line Mayors

proposalBudget

amendment

Description

(10) 8,600,000 8,600,000 estimated expenditure of the Assembly for theyear calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a)of the Act

(11) 0 0 estimated allowance for contingencies for theAssembly under s85(4)(b) of the Act

(12) 0 0 estimated reserves to be raised for meetingfuture expenditure of the Assembly unders85(4)(c) of the Act

(13) 0 0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenueaccount deficit of the Assembly under s85(4)(d) of the Act

(14) 8,600,000 8,600,00

0

aggregate of the amounts for the items set

out in s85(4) of the Act for the Assembly (lines(10) + (11) + (12) + (13) above)

(15) 0 0 estimate of the Assemblys income calculatedin accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act

(16) 0 0 estimate of the Assemblys reserves to beused in meeting amounts in lines (10) and (11)above under s85(5)(b) of the Act

(17) 0 0 aggregate of the amounts for the items setout in section 85(5) of the Act for theAssembly (lines (15) + (16))

(18) 8,600,000 8,600,000

the draft component budget requirement forthe Assembly (being the amount by which theaggregate at (14) above exceeds theaggregate at (17) above calculated inaccordance with section 85(6) of the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the Assembly for 2010-11 is: 8,600,000



36/40

Part 3: Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA)draftcomponent budget requirement calculations

NOTE: Amendments to the draft consolidated budget will take effect as follows.Where a figure is shown in column 3, the figure in column 2 is amended to the

figure in column 3. If no figure is shown in column 3, then the figure in column2 shall be taken to apply un-amended. If nil or 0 is shown in column 3,then the figure in column 2 is amended to nil.

1 2 3 4Line Mayors


Description

(19) 3,645,000,000

3,661,400,000 estimated expenditure of the MPA for the yearcalculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of theAct

(20) 0 0 estimated allowance for contingencies for the

MPA under s85(4)(b) of the Act

(21) 0 0 estimated reserves to be raised for meetingfuture expenditure of the MPA under s85(4)(c)of the Act

(22) 0 0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenueaccount deficit of the MPA under s85(4)(d) ofthe Act

(23) 3,645,000,000

3,661,400,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin s85(4) of the Act for the MPA (lines (19) +(20) + (21) + (22) above)

(24) -967,500,00

0

-967,500,000

estimate of the MPAs income calculated inaccordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act

(25) -4,200,000 -4,200,000 estimate of MPAs reserves to be used inmeeting amounts in lines (19) and (20) aboveunder s85(5)(b) of the Act

(26) -971,700,0

00

-971,700,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin section 85(5) of the Act for the MPA (lines(24) + (25))

(27) 2,673,300,000

2,689,700,0

00the draft component budget requirement forthe MPA (being the amount by which theaggregate at (23) above exceeds the aggregateat (26) above calculated in accordance withsection 85(6) of the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the MPA for 2010-11 is:2,689,700,000



37/40

Part 4: London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA)draft component budget requirement calculations


1 2 3 4Line Mayors


Description

(28) 469,200,000

470,000,000 estimated expenditure of LFEPA for the yearcalculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of theAct

(29) 0 0 estimated allowance for contingencies for

LFEPA under s85(4)(b) of the Act(30) 0 0 estimated reserves to be raised for meeting

future expenditure of LFEPA under s85(4)(c) ofthe Act

(31) 0 0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenueaccount deficit of LFEPA under s85(4)(d) of theAct

(32) 469,200,000

470,500,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin s85(4) of the Act for LFEPA (lines (28) + (29)+ (30) + (31) above)

(33) -31,900,000

-31,900,000

estimate of LFEPAs income calculated inaccordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act

(34) 0 -25,200,000

estimate of LFEPAs reserves to be used inmeeting amounts in lines (28) and (29) aboveunder s85(5)(b) of the Act

(35) -31,900,00

0

-57,100,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin section 85(5) of the Act for LFEPA (lines (33)+ (34))

(36) 437,300,0

00

412,900,0

00

the draft component budget requirement for

LFEPA (being the amount by which theaggregate at (32) above exceeds the aggregateat (35) above calculated in accordance withsection 85(6) of the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for LFEPA for 2010-11 is:412,900,000



38/40

Part 5: Transport for London (TfL) draft component budgetrequirement calculations


1 2 3 4Line Mayors


Description

(37) 9,076,000,000

9,075,000,000

estimated expenditure of TfL for the yearcalculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of theAct

(38) 84,000,000 84,000,000 estimated allowance for contingencies for TfLunder s85(4)(b) of the Act

(39) 0 0 estimated reserves to be raised for meetingfuture expenditure of TfL under s85(4)(c) of theAct

(40) 0 0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue accountdeficit of TfL under s85(4)(d) of the Act

(41) 9,160,000,000

9,159,000,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin s85(4) of the Act for TfL (lines (37) + (38) +(39) + (40) above)

(42) -8,659,000,0

00

-8,658,000,000

estimate of TfLs income calculated inaccordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act

(43) -489,000,000

-489,000,000

estimate of TfLs reserves to be used in meetingamounts in lines (37) and (38) above unders85(5)(b) of the Act

(44) -9,148,000,

000

-9,158,000,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin section 85(5) of the Act for TfL (lines (42) +(43))

(45) 12,000,000 1,000,00

0

the component budget requirement for TfL

(being the amount by which the aggregate at(41) above exceeds the aggregate at (44) abovecalculated in accordance with section 85(6) ofthe Act)

The draft component budget requirement for TfL for 2010-11 is:1,000,000



39/40

Part 6: London Development Agency (LDA) draft component budgetrequirement calculations


1 2 3 4Line Mayors

ProposalBudgetamendment

Description

(46) 335,300,000

335,300,000

estimated expenditure of the LDA for the yearcalculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of theAct

(47) 3,000,000 3,000,000 estimated allowance for contingencies for theLDA under s85(4)(b) of the Act

(48) 0 0 estimated reserves to be raised for meetingfuture expenditure of the LDA under s85(4)(c) ofthe Act

(49) 0 0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue accountdeficit of the LDA under s85(4)(d) of the Act

(50) 338,300,000

338,300,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin s85(4) of the Act for the LDA (lines (46) + (47)+ (48) + (49) above)

(51) -319,700,00

0

-319,700,000

estimate of the LDAs income calculated inaccordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act

(52) -18,600,000

-18,600,000

estimate of the LDAs reserves to be used inmeeting amounts in lines (46) and (47) aboveunder s85(5)(b) of the Act

(53) -338,300,0

00

-338,300,000

aggregate of the amounts for the items set outin section 85(5) of the Act for the LDA (lines (51)+ (52))

(54) 0 0 the component budget requirement for the LDA

(being the amount by which the aggregate at(50) above exceeds the aggregate at (53) abovecalculated in accordance with section 85(6) ofthe Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the LDA for 2010-2011is: 0



40/40

Part 7: The Greater London Authority (GLA") draft consolidated budgetrequirement calculations


1 2 3 4Line Mayors

proposedconsolidatedbudgetrequirement

Budgetamendmentsproposedconsolidatedbudgetrequirement

Description

(55) 3,257,300,000 3,233,734,753 the GLAs consolidated budgetrequirement (the sum of theamounts in lines (9) + (18) +(27) + (36) + (45) + (54))calculated in accordance withsection 85(8) of the Act

5. The draft consolidated budget requirement for 2010-11 is:

3,233,734,753


Report to the Assembly on the Mayor’s

Documents

Transcript of Report to the Assembly on the Mayor’s