Report to the Assembly on the Mayor’s

Draft Consolidated Budget for 2010 –

2011

Report to: London Assembly

Date: 27 January 2010

Report of: Liberal Democrat Group

Proposed by: Mike Tuffrey

Seconded by: Dee Doocey

PART A: INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY1

The Liberal Democrat Group on the London Assembly proposes this

amendment which:
• Restores Boris Johnson’s £16.4 million cut in Council Tax funding
for the police
• Redirects police spending to priorities such as knife and gun crime
and child trafficking and away from perks for senior officers and
other wasteful items
• Brings in the One Hour Bus Ticket and supports innovative bus,
cycling and walking schemes
• Cuts waste at City Hall and returns excessive reserves to
Londoners through a 2.6% cut in the Council Tax precept.

As in previous years, this package achieves both savings and increased

efficiencies, while proposing imaginative safety, transport, and
environmental initiatives. We know that for many families in London this
financial year will be a tough one. Our budget package will cost a Band
D Council Tax payer £301.91, a real cut of 2.6% in the GLA precept,
saving 58p per week – nearly double the temporary supplement for the
Olympics.

We are proposing a budget that is fair to all Londoners, proposing

changes that are sustainable and proposing fully costed ideas which
protect and enhance public services in the capital. At a time when most
boroughs in London are holding down their costs and charges, we too
are offering a fair deal for tax and fare payers.

1
This report is made up of two Parts, A and B. The text in Part A does not form part of
the formal budget amendments, which are set out in Part B.
 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 our
budget amendment.

The Liberal Democrats fully support the overall approach in MPA/MPS

Draft Policing London Business Plan 2010-13 and believe there should be
no cuts in overall expenditure. However within the overall budget, we
believe 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 (see
notes), which use figures taken from the Met’s own published costings.
We are happy for our calculations to be scrutinised by the MPA/MPS to
confirm their accuracy

Specifically, we propose:

• To reverse the 5% cut in Borough Devolved Budgets, putting

money 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 the
highest incidence of gun and knife crime;

• To provide embroidered numerals on police epaulettes, and name

badges, to ensure that officers, PCSOs and Special Constables may
be easily identified by the public; and

• To expand the Paladin team to allow increased policing of child

trafficking.

We propose that these costs be met by cutting unnecessary expenditure

in the police service. Senior officers should use public transport rather
than chauffeur-driven limousines unless it is essential for operational
purposes, and should not use first or business class when flying on Met
business. We believe that a major reduction in the Met’s Directorate of
Public Affairs would have no impact on London’s policing, neither would
reductions by a third in the Met’s use of consultants.

[See appendix 1 for further detail]

Sustaining London’s emergency service

2
See note 9, p.11
The main threat for future years to the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority is the uncertainty about government funding.
However LFEPA’s reserves of £27.2million are excessive, sufficient to
meet even the most pessimistic of the Mayor’s targets as far ahead as
2014. Officers at LFEPA have reported:

“The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

takes a generally prudent approach to cost estimation and
budgeting indicates that a general reserve level of 2.5%
(£10.9m based upon the current forecast budget and costing for
2010/11) can currently be deemed to be adequate…
(LFEPA 2010-11 Budget Report, 16 November 2009)

Some of LFEPA’s excess reserves of £27.2million can be used to support

the 2010-11 capital budget, but the majority can be prudently released
to reduce the call on the precept this year.

Some additional capital spending is cost effective. Last December the

Mayor launched the Building Energy Efficiency Programme with much
media hype and claims that 20 fire stations were in line for energy
saving capital works. However within weeks LFEPA had decided to de-
prioritise the scheme and no project is included in the capital
programme until 2012/13 - after the end of the Mayor’s term of office.
These works can have a relatively fast pay-back period for the initial
outlay, and will significantly improve the Brigade’s work to cut carbon
emissions. We propose that these works be reinstated.

There are Grade II listed cottages at the rear of West Hampstead Fire
Station. They are in poor condition and have been identified as “At Risk”
by English Heritage. A Brigade scheme to refurbish them will provide
accommodation for fire-fighters and provide rental income as well as
satisfy the Brigade’s 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 cost
to their local taxpayers). We do not accept such shoddy behaviour from
a public authority and would pay for the vital work to be undertaken.

[See appendix 2 for further detail]

A better way to go

We propose to change the priorities within Transport for London’s

budget, move ahead with important initiatives and reduce TfL’s
£12million share of the precept to £1million. This will improve the level
of services for Londoners and provide value for money for passengers
and taxpayers.

The highlight of our package is the ‘One Hour’ bus ticket, a fair way to
charge passengers who have to take more than one bus in order to
reach their destination. Tube passengers already enjoy this ability and it
is discrimination towards bus passengers that they have to pay twice for
what could be a relatively short journey. The ‘One Hour’ bus ticket will
also encourage more people out of their cars and onto public transport
instead, which will help the environment and relieve congestion.

We want the Mayor and TfL to be more imaginative in transport

schemes. As a first step in rolling out orbital express bus routes, we will
fund Ealing and Brent Councils' "Fastbus" proposal for an express route
connecting Wembley and Ealing with the Park Royal business park. This
service, which is strongly supported by the local councils and businesses
in 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 support
schemes similar to that run by Waltham Forest Council, which
recycles used bikes and sells them on at sensible prices. These
schemes would also provide vocational training for local people.

• Measures to increase walking, demonstrating how easy it is to

walk around London so reducing pressure on the public transport
network and providing a healthy form of exercise. This money will
be in addition to the spending already being planned by Transport
for London which is tiny, in comparison with other budgets.

We plan to pay for this expenditure by making a more determined attack

on fare evasion, currently costing TfL £70million a year. The aim would
be to reduce this by £10.2million, spending an additional £3million on
revenue inspectors. Much of the remaining savings would be made by
removing free travel for staff nominees, halving current bonus packages,
and by delaying the withdrawal of ‘bendy buses’ from their existing
routes this year.

[See appendix 3 for further detail]

Cutting wasteful expenditure

In the core Greater London Authority budget we note that the

Mayor’s budget for external communication shows little real reduction
despite promises: nearly one in five people in City Hall (excluding
Assembly staff) now work on presenting a positive image of the Mayor.

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

3
Media 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
expenditure at City Hall, which rises to £134.7million next year
compared to £125.6million under his predecessor.4

We propose to cut wasteful expenditure at City Hall, including cancelling

plans to hold yet more non-statutory People’s Question Times. We will
also increase efficiency, reduce the reliance on temporary staff which
should be coming down as the Organisation for Delivery programme is
completed, and reduce by 10% the level of cash reserves which totalled
just over £24million last year.

Clean Air in central London

Urgent action needs to be taken now to tackle the pollution that is

impacting Londoners’ health. London’s air quality is the worst in the UK,
and one of the worst of Europe’s capital cities. Air quality in London
breaches national and European limit values for particulates (PM10) and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Current levels of air pollution cause over 3,000
premature deaths a year and affect hundreds of thousands more –
particularly the very young, the elderly and those with conditions such
as 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 be
where the problem is worst, in central London and around arterial roads.
Therefore we propose to fund a feasibility study into introducing one or
more inner ‘clean air’ zones. Not only will this improve the health of
Londoners, it will ensure that London has cleaner air in time for the
Olympics in 2012.

[See appendix 4 for further detail]

Effective scrutiny for Londoners

This year the London Assembly’s budget is separately identified and

the 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-money
public accountability.

Preparing for the future

The London Development Agency continues to make no call on the

precept, but this does not mean that its budget should be ignored.

We are concerned that the LDA is planning to spend money on investing

in financial support to Academy Schools particularly since under 16s

question 2936/2009
4
Council tax precept income: 2010/11 £922 million; 2007/08 £882 million
education does not form any part of its remit. We believe the money
would be better-spent supporting projects to teach and enhance school
leavers’ skills, and enable people who have lost their jobs to re-train.

We advocate that the London Development Agency, rather than provide

a secondary education service where it has no legal remit, should re-
focus its effort and money on equipping Londoners to cope with the
recession and find new opportunities in a 21st century economy. The LDA
should also exploit the growing opportunities in the low carbon economy
by investing in appropriate training for Londoners. This would include
developing a skills strategy to help people who have lost their jobs, or
are in need of apprenticeships, for example to train in the fitting of
environmental improvements to homes and workplaces.

Conclusion

We believe the Mayor owes it to Londoners to examine seriously the

measures we have proposed. As with our previous plans to give half-
price bus travel to people in receipt of a Job Seekers Allowance, he
should accept good ideas whatever their origin.

The Mayor said last year: "I have put openness and accountability at the
heart of my mayoralty because I passionately believe that London
taxpayers have a right to know where their money is being spent and
how decisions are taken over crucial issues like policing, the economy
and transport.”

We agree - which is why it is so disappointing that the Mayor has failed

to deliver on these promises in his draft consolidated budget for
2010/11. Our budget amendment will cost a Band D Council Tax payer
£301.91, a real cut of 2.6% in the GLA precept, equating to a saving 58p
per week in Council Tax payments.

In moving our amendment we are providing the Mayor with an

opportunity to move London forward and help Londoners cope with the
economic crisis in the year ahead. We hope that, when he reports back
to the Assembly in February with his final budget, the Mayor will have
taken our positive suggestions on board.
APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals

Increased expenditure - Liberal

Democrat proposals
 Additional Explanato
cost ry notes
2010/11
Additional money for all London £8.9 million Note 1
boroughs
All borough commanders have devolved
budgets and are being asked by the Met to
reduce their expenditure by 5% in 2010/11.
We believe this could impact on front line
policing and propose that devolved budgets
should not be reduced.

Embroidered numerals and name £450,000 Note 2

badges for all officers
Recent events have clearly demonstrated
the need for all officers to be easily identified
by the public. The Met currently use numeral
pins, which are easily dislodged. The Met are
proposing to introduce embroidered
numerals for just some of their officers, but
our proposals would provide embroidered
numerals for all Met officers. We would also
provide name badges for every person
employed by the Met.

Additional police for boroughs with the £14.76 million Note 3

highest levels of gun and knife crime
A number of boroughs in London suffer from
high levels of knife and gun crime. We would
fund an additional police officer in every
ward in the 10 boroughs with the highest
levels of gun and knife crime (a total of 13
boroughs overall). A key part of their role
would be to engage with young people.

Additional police to deal with child £1.27 million Note 4

trafficking
The practice of trafficking children to the UK
to be used as domestic ‘slaves’ (or worse) is
totally unacceptable. A small team (known
as Paladin) consisting of police and
immigration officers do excellent work trying
to stem the flow. We propose to dramatically
expand the Paladin team, to enable more
entry points to London to be policed.
Total additional expenditure 2010/11 £25.38
million
APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals
cont..

Increased expenditure funded by:

Liberal Democrat proposals for savings in Identified Explanatory

the MPA Savings notes
2010/11

Limousines and Chauffeurs £1.615 million Note 5

Senior Met officers are provided with a car
and chauffeur to take them to and from work
and meetings. The Commissioner has stated
that there is “a distance growing between
[the police] and the public”. We believe that
this distance is more likely to be reduced if
senior officers used public transport like the
rest of Londoners. We would therefore
abolish cars and chauffeurs for all senior
officers with the exception of those officers
who require cars for security purposes.

Flights £0.57 million Note 6

Senior Met officers are entitled to use First
Class and Business Class travel when they
are travelling on Met business. We believe
this is totally inappropriate at a time when
boroughs are being starved of cash for front
line policing. We would ban the use of all
first and business class flights for all senior
officers with the exception of those involved
in Specialist Operations.

Press officers £3.035 million Note 7

The Met employs 74 people within the
Directorate of Public Affairs, to deal with the
media. We believe this to be excessive and
would reduce the staffing by 50%.

Consultants £3.76 million Note 8

The Met spends a disproportionate amount
of its budget on consultants, which we
believe cannot be justified. Our proposals
would reduce the amount of money spent on
consultants by 40%.

Add
The Mayor allocates a proportion of the GLA £16.4 million Note 9
precept income to the Met each year.
Despite this income increasing by £7 million
in 2010/11, the Mayor has reduced the
amount given to the MPA by £16.4 million.
We believe this is unacceptable and should
be restored immediately which would in
effect increase Met income by £16.4 million.

Total available to spend in 2010/11 £25.38

million

APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals

cont..

Explanatory notes to our expenditure proposals

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

Note
2 Staffing requirements in the draft Policing London Business Plan 2010-13, for the year
2010/11:

Staffing requirements (excl. Budget 2010/11

Police Staff)
Police Officers 32,865
Recruits 264
PCSOs 4,716
Special Constables 5,330
Traffic Wardens 219
TOTAL 43,394

Staffing requirements Budget 2010/11

Police Staff 14,944

TOTAL MPS STAFFING 58,338

2010/11

The cost for a set of epaulettes is £2.02 (MPS figures Jan 2010). We would equip
every police officer, recruit, PCSO, Special Constable and Traffic Warden with two
sets of epaulettes. We would also allow for 100% turnover in staff positions each
year, due to movement of staff between Operational Command Units. The costs are
as follows:

Number of people requiring epaulettes 43,394

Number of sets of epaulettes required 86,788
Cost per set of epaulettes £2.02
Total cost of epaulettes £175,312
Allowance for 100% turnover of staff £175,312
 TOTAL COST £350,624

We would also equip every person employed by the MPS with two name badges, at
an estimated cost of £0.80 each. The costs would be as follows:

Number of people requiring name 58,338

badges
Number of badges required 116,676
Add 5% buffer 122,500
Cost per badge £0.80
TOTAL COST £98,000

TOTAL COST FOR BADGES AND EPAULETTES = £448,624

APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals
cont..

Note
3 Borough Name 2008 Number Numb
Population Gun Enabled Crime of MPS er of
** officers Wards
Incidents Rate Rank in
in the 12 per Boroug
months to 1,000 h
Nov 09* people
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 19
Waltham 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 & 168,900 88 0.52 9 442 17
Dagenham
Greenwich 222,900 112 0.50 10 701 17

Borough Name 2008 Knife Crime Number Numb

Population of MPS er of
** officers Wards
Incidents Rate Rank in
in the 12 per Boroug
months to 1,000 h
Nov 09* people
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 & 168,900 371 2.20 6 442 17
Dagenham
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 = 246

Cost of a police constable = £60,000

TOTAL COST OF EXTRA POLICE OFFICERS = £14.76 million

APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals
cont..

Note We propose to expand the existing Paladin team by funding the following additional
4 posts:

Cost including
overheads
3 Detective Sergeant £216,000
8 Detective Constables £480,000
Total £696,000

In addition, we have allowed £574,000 to be used for appropriate accommodation for

the team in key locations.

TOTAL PALADIN COST: £1,270,000

Explanatory notes on identified savings

Note The table below illustrates how £1.6 million could be saved by abolishing cars and
5 chauffeurs for all senior officers with the exception of officers who require these for
security purposes.

Cars for MPS ACPO officers to be abolished

Cost pa Total
No. £ cost
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
1,615,33
Total identified savings 3
Note We would ban the use of all first and business class flights for all senior officers with
6 the exception of those involved in Specialist Operations. The table below shows
MPS expenditure on travel in 2008/9:

Business Groups Economy Busines First Grand Funde Cost to Cost to

s Total d by Met Met
Externa excludi
l ng
Sources econom
y
Central 48,454 47,583 13,080 109,118 50,846 58,272 9,818
Operations
D/ Comm's 36,226 25,223 8,450 69,899 0 69,899 33,673
Portfolio
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 Log 17,807 608 911 19,326 0 19,326 1,519
Services
MPA 240 0 0 240 0 240 0
Olympics 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 28,750 4,961,78 3,548,67 1,410,97 569,170
0 6 4

Lib Dem identified 569,17

savings 0
APPENDIX 1 Metropolitan Police Budget Proposals
cont..

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

MPA/MPS Draft Liberal Democrat

Policing London proposals
Business Plan
2010-13
£'000 £'000
Pay
Police Staff Pay 3,799 1,900
Overtime 122 61
Total Pay and Overtime 3,921 1,961

Running expenses
Employee related expenditure 72 36
Premises 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

Note In 2008/9 the MPS spent £9.4 m on consultants (MQT 2350/2009). A reduction of 40%
8 in this expenditure would result in a saving of £3.76 million.

Note
9 The Mayor’s 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 2,673.3
General Government Funding -1,978.3 -2,027.7
Council Tax Amount for Police 662.0 645.6
Services

This shows a decrease of £16.4 million in the amount given to the MPA from the
Mayor’s Council Tax Precept from 2009/10 to 2010/11.
APPENDIX 2 LFEPA Budget Proposals

Increased expenditure - Liberal

Democrat proposals
Additional Explanato
Cost ry Notes
2010-11
Restore Building Energy Efficiency £0.6million Note 1
Programme to 2010-11 capital
programme
This high-profile programme of energy
efficiency measures at fire stations was
launched by the Mayor in December 2009
but was not progressed in 2010 under the
draft budget. We will reinstate it.
West Hampstead Fire Station cottages £0.7million Note 2
refurbishment
When refurbished these listed cottages will
be available for accommodation for fire-
fighters

Total Increased expenditure £1.3million

Increased expenditure funded by:

Liberal Democrat Proposals for savings Identified Explanato
in LFEPA savings ry note
2010-11
Review training procurement expenses £0.5million Note 3
Further soft market testing to better scope
the Future Options for Training results in
lower cost falling in 2010-11
Use of excess LFEPA reserves £25.2millio Note 4
LFEPA’s officers advise a prudent level of n
General Reserves for 2010-11 to be
£10.9million. However the Authority
currently anticipates holding far more by the
end of 2009-10.
Total Savings £25.7millio
n

Explanatory notes on identified savings

Note The Mayor launched the Building Energy Efficiency Programme

1 last December with much media coverage and claims 20 fire
stations were in line for energy saving capital works. However
within weeks LFEPA has decided to de-prioritise the scheme and
 no project is included in the capital programme until 2012/13 -
after the end of the Mayor’s term of office. These works can
have a relatively fast pay-back period for the initial outlay, and
will significantly improve the Brigade’s work to cut carbon
emissions.
Note There are Grade II listed cottages at the rear of West
2 Hampstead Fire Station. They are in poor condition and have
been identified as “At Risk” by English Heritage. They are
integral to the site so not saleable. Happily the Brigade had
developed a scheme to refurbish them to provide
accommodation for fire-fighters. Rental income provides a
sound return on the expenditure and the Brigade’s statutory
obligations to preserve the buildings would be satisfied.
Nevertheless, the Conservative leadership of the Authority
refuse to allow the scheme to proceed unless and until the local
authority takes enforcement action (at a cost to their local
taxpayers). We do not accept such shoddy behaviour from a
public authority.
Note The Mayor’s draft budget includes a proposal for £950,000 in
3 increased back-office spend to support the procurement of
brigade training. So far “soft marketing” has failed to provide
the evidence to fully scope the likely outcome of the tendering.
We believe further targeted soft market testing is required
before beginning procurement. This will certainly reduce the
cost falling in 2010-11 and potentially the overall cost.
Note LFEPA currently anticipates holding £38.1million by the end of
4 2009-10. However officers advise a prudent level of General
Reserves for 2010-11 to be £10.9million:
…a generally prudent approach to cost
estimation and budgeting indicates that a
general reserve level of 2.5% (£10.9m based
upon the current forecast budget and costing for
2010/11) can currently be deemed to be
adequate…
(LFEPA 2010-11 Budget Report, 16 November 2009)

Unlike previous years, the Mayor’s budget this year makes no

drawing on these excessive reserves, preferring to use more
Council Tax. We believe these reserves should be used to fund
LFEPA expenditure so that LFEPA would need a smaller draw on
the Council Tax precept. We would also use £2m of reserves to
help fund LFEPA’s capital programme, in preference to the
Mayor’s more expensive proposal to borrow the money.
LFEPA Balances – from LFEPA Authority Budget report, FEP1455, 19 November 2009
p46
LGPS
Maintenan
Firefighte Pension Sustainabil London
PFI ce & Minor General Total
r' Pension Contributio ity Resilience
Works
ns
£'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 Improvement
(1.618) (1.618)
Programme
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 interest
0.045 0.045
allocation
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 Improvement
(1.580) (1.580)
Programme
Provisional drawings (1.547) (1.547)
Outturn 14.622 14.622
Anticipated Balance @
1.771 0.631 0.000 1.500 0.541 1.980 39.753 46.177
31/03/09
Provisional Financing (14.324) (14.324)
Outturn 12.655 12.655
Anticipated Balance @
1.771 0.631 0.000 1.500 0.541 1.980 38.084 44.508
31/03/10
NB Since publication the £1.5m Maintenance & Minor Works reserve has been used to support the 2010-11 capital
programme.
APPENDIX 3 Transport for London Budget Proposals

Increased expenditure - Liberal Additional Explanato

Democrat proposals cost ry notes
2010/11
Tackling Fare evasion £3 million Note 1
Fare evasion currently costs TfL around £70
million per year. The Liberal Democrats believe
that increasing the number of revenue
protection inspectors can significantly reduce
this figure.
Introducing a ‘Fastbus’ pilot £1.3 Note 2
million
FastBus would transform travel in West London.
It would be good for businesses at Park Royal,
and would also provide a frequent and fast
service, principally for commuters, connecting
railway stations and releasing capacity on
central London stations as well as reducing car
trips in the local area. This first route would act
as a pilot for other areas.
A ‘One Hour’ bus ticket for London £25million Note 3
The ‘One Hour’ bus ticket is a fair way to charge
passengers who have to take more than one
bus in order to reach their destination. Tube
passengers already enjoy this service and it is
discrimination towards bus passengers that
they have to pay twice for what could be a
relatively short journey. The ‘One Hour’ bus
ticket will also encourage more people out of
their cars and onto public transport, which
would help the environment and to relieve
congestion.
Pump prime a ‘Cycle Recycling’ scheme in £0.3 Note 4
3 boroughs million
Based on a successful scheme run by Waltham
Forest Council, this scheme is about recycling
used bikes and selling them on to others at
sensible prices. We would run a similar scheme
in three additional boroughs to recycle used
bikes. This scheme would also assist with
providing vocational training in mechanics,
retail and other useful skills for local people.
Other benefits of this scheme would include
reducing carbon emissions, encouraging
healthy lifestyles and relieving congestion on
our roads and other transport networks.
This money is in addition to the extra money
from the Mayor to get people cycling in London
suburbs.

A major increase in funding for developing £1.8 Note 5

walking in London with boroughs. million
Despite recent mayoral announcements,
information for walkers in London is not
sufficient. Improving this will have many
positive effects, such as improving health of
Londoners by increasing exercise, improving
the air quality and relieving public transport
pressure.
This would be done by providing people with
more information by the way of maps and more
detailed signage to help people find their way
around without having to rely on just the tube
map.
Total additional expenditure 2010/11 £31.4
million

Increased expenditure funded by: Identified Explanato

ry notes
Savings
2010/11
50% cut in bonus payments to £2.7million Note 6
Commissioner, Chief Officers and
Directors
In a time of recession with many people
struggling to make ends meet, the Liberal
Democrats believe it is the fair thing to do to
cut the bonus budget.
Increased fare revenue from better £10.2millio Note 1
enforcement n also
This will be the result of having more
enforcement officers, which would in turn
increase revenue from fares and from penalty
charges.
Delayed withdrawal of bendy buses on £18million Note 7
existing routes
Delayed withdrawal of some buses would result
in a substantial saving. There would be a need
for fewer replacement buses and drivers and
additional costs associated with this increase.
The Liberal Democrats believe that by doing
this, it will ensure best value for London’s
taxpayers and residents. This will make the
best use of current resources, rather than
engaging in the unnecessary replacement of
perfectly usable buses, to the detriment of both
the environment and Transport for London’s
financial position.
Eliminating TfL Staff Nominee Travel £11.5millio Note 8
n
We simply do not understand why all TfL
employees, who get free travel themselves, are
also allowed to nominate one other person of
their choice (from their household) to travel for
free also, with the bill being picked up by the
tax payer.
Total savings 2010/11 £42.4milli
on

Note ‘Fare evasion costs Londoners £70 million a year’ – (Source - page 48
1 of the TfL Annual Report 2009).
The principal purpose of Revenue Protection Inspectors (RPIs) is to
drive down fare evasion. RPIs cost TfL around £31,000 each per year.
(Source – TfL)
Therefore, 97 extra RPIs would cost around £3 million per year.
It is difficult to quantify an exact figure for how much increased
revenue will be generated from the increased number of RPIs. Not
only do they issue penalties to people, which does generate money,
but they also act as a deterrent to potential fare evaders.
We estimate a prudent figure of £10.2 million in revenue from
spending £3 million on extra RPIs.
Note Costing done by Colin Buchanan and Partners in 2007 was £1.2 million,
2 so we have added inflation.
Buchanan's conclusion was that high levels of patronage could be
expected on Fastbus phase 1 (Wembley Park to North Acton at that
stage - now extended to Acton Main Line station). They considered the
scheme to be "a valuable and cost effective scheme for improving
public transport in north west London, in line with the Mayor's
Transport Strategy".
The Fastbus concept fits with the Mayor's manifesto comment on
express bus services linking rail stations in outer London.
Note In the 3rd quarter of 2008/09 there were 102 million Pay As You Go
3 bus journeys. The fares revenue was £79 million.
TfL estimate that 16% of such journeys involve using a second bus
within 60 minutes of the first. This accounts for £12.64 million of the
revenue. Worked out as an annual cost, this would come to £50.56
million.
This figure does not, however, include any extra revenue, which we
believe will be generated for TfL, from additional passengers. We
believe there will be a considerable shift from short car journeys to
short 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) = £25
million (to the nearest million)
Note One quarter of all the adults in London own a bike, equating to over
4 1.5million bikes. 40% of these bike owners haven’t used their bikes so
far in 2009 equating to over 600,000 unused bikes. 9% of these
owners have not used their bikes for over 5 years, equating to 137,000
unused 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 casual
staff, and supported by 20 volunteers.
The public, the Council and the police provide a steady stream of
bikes, which are re-built at the centre. The scheme recycles about 30
bikes each month, and holds a bike sale on the first Saturday of every
month, with bikes typically available for £45 for an adult bike and £20
for children’s bikes. The centre runs a regular drop-in workshop and for
a £3 donation the public can receive help from a professional
mechanic 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.
Note In 2008/09 TfL spent £9m on supporting walking initiatives in the
5 boroughs. We believe a considerable boost for additional signage and
maps is needed to increase walking in the Capital.
Note In answer to MQT 2937/2009 £5,341,140 was paid to this group of TfL
6 employees in 2008/09.
Note Bendy Bus Withdrawal timetable:
7 Single-deck buses took over from bendy buses on route 521 and 38 in
2009. Routes 18 and 149 are scheduled to convert by the end of
2010. The remaining routes - 12, 25, 29, 73, 207, 436 and 453 - will
convert by the end of 2011. (Source – TfL Commissioner’s Report, 21st
October 2009).
http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3526/get/.
LondonTravelWatch calculated the cost of withdrawing all Bendy Buses
from service was estimated at £60m in 2008/09 prices.
LondonTravelWatch estimates that the replacement of bendy buses
costs around £0.3 million per bus per year in additional costs. TfL
estimate inflation in their recent Business Plan to be at 2.7% to bring
this figure to £0.308 million.
In order to run routes 18 and 149 reliably during the busiest periods at
the advertised frequencies, they each require a Peak Vehicle
Requirement of 32 and 27 respectively. (Source – TfL).
Therefore, if we plan to delay the withdrawal of routes 18 and 149
bendy buses in London, it would cost:
59 x £0.308 million = £18 million (to nearest million)
Note Eliminating TfL Staff Nominee Travel
8 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 TfL
staff and are a key way of recruiting and retaining staff.
As of 20 January 2009, there were a total of 21,612 Oyster cards
issued to the nominees of employees*.
Any cost to TfL of providing free travel to nominees of TfL employees
cannot be reliable estimated. The reason is that if nominees were
asked to pay for their travel then their travel patterns would
undoubtedly change significantly, but in a manner that cannot be
accurately predicted or costed.
*The above figure does not include Bus Operator Nominees or retired
nominees, who are not TfL employees. But the total number does
includes staff employed by Infracos such as Tubelines and other TUPEd
staff: which cannot be readily separated out.”
If each nominee spent an average amount travel (lowest), as
calculated by London Living wage report
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/living-wage-
2009.pdf of £26.76 a week.
For 46 weeks of year (excluding holidays) = £1230 per nominee
* 21,000 nominees (from the above question)
This will come to £25,850,160
If we are extremely lenient and assume that less than half of nominees
don't commute/use it regularly this would still come to an estimate of
£11.5m (this prudent figure also counter balances the argument that
the free card holders may travel more due to having free travel).
APPENDIX 4 Greater London Authority Budget
Proposals

Increased expenditure - Liberal

Democrat proposals
Liberal Democrat proposal Additional Explanato
cost ry notes
2010/11
Fund initial feasibility study of an inner £50,000
London LEZ
Air pollution in London is the worst in the UK for
dangerous airborne particles (PM10). London is
now also breaking health based EU limits for
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). We want to tackle the
problem, where it’s worst, in inner and central
London. There needs to be an inner London
Clean Air Zone which excludes the most polluting
vehicles from driving in the centre of town where
air pollution is worst. This will improve air
quality, and improve the health and quality of
life of Londoners.
Total additional expenditure 2010/11 £50,000

Savings identified in the GLA:

Liberal Democrat proposals Identified Explanato
Savings ry notes
2010/11
Savings in Marketing and Mayoral
Communications £126,800 Note 1
10% reduction in Marketing budget
£300,000 Note 2
Increased event sponsorship

Savings in marketing and publicity for the

non-statutory public meetings the Mayor has £120,000 Note 3
introduced (including elimination of hall hire
costs together with associated savings in
publicity costs, etc)

Reduce use of Temporary Staff

Reduce use of temporary staff to their May £1,310,847 Note 4
2008 levels.

Use of reserves
Additional reduction of the General Reserve £1,600,000 Note 5
to 3% of 2009/10 non-Olympic budget

10% reduction in earmarked reserves, £1,157,600 Note 6

excluding the election reserve

Total savings 2010/11 £4,565,247

Budget requirement £121,534,753

APPENDIX 4 Greater London Authority Budget

Proposals cont…

Explanatory notes to our proposals

Note Marketing budget 2009/10 was £1,268,00. See:

1 http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/docs/strategic-plan09-12-
app1.pdf, p.41

Note The sponsorship team raised £1.1m in 2006/7

2 (http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=19479). Last
year the income across all of External Affairs was £706k. (See link to
budget in note 1). No target for sponsorship was set in the funding
agreed by the GLA and LDA for this year’s events programme
(http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20090617-md-
358-GLA-LDA-joint-funding-signed.pdf).
Note There is a statutory duty on the Mayor and Assembly to hold 2 People’s
3 Question Time meetings a year. This Mayor has chosen to hold a range
of public meetings, at which Assembly Members are generally not
invited to participate, sorely as means of promoting the Mayor‘s
agenda. There is a budget of £30,000 each for four extra events a
year (http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=24666).
Note Reduce use of Temporary staff to their May 2008 levels. Annual spend
4 therefore £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 the
year to August £2.5m was spent.

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

Number of Temporary Staff em ployed by

the GLA per m onth
Number of Temporary Staff

100
80
60
40
20
0
Se 8

08

9
08

M 9

9
08

M 9
l-0

l-0
-0
0

-0
v-
-

n-
p-
ay

ay
ar
Ju

Ju
No

Ja
M

Background

Number of Temporary Agency Staff

Expenditure per
number month £
Period per month
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 73 230,369.30
Total 3,127,830.66 Total 2,544,147.1
 1

GLA Consultants & Temporary Agency Staff

[Main question] 2952/2009; 14/10/2009
Question by Mike Tuffrey
At 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 spent
on consultants and temporary agency staff since May 2008. Please make this
information available.
Answer by Boris Johnson
[…]
Temporary Staff
It has taken longer than anticipated to provide the information requested because at
present the engagement of temporary agency staff on a short term basis (up to 4
working weeks) is mainly a local management responsibility and as such there is no
central record of the total number of temporary agency workers engaged at any one
time.
The payment information held on the Authority’s accounting system has been
analysed and I can advise that the number temporary agency staff employed per
month and payments made are as follows:
[Numbers appear in table above]
Notes:
(1) The figures for March and April 2009 are affected by the accounting
entries for year-end accruals, and therefore need to be taken together.
(2) With the completion of the Organising for Delivery programme and the
resumption of permanent recruitment, arrangements are now in hand to
reduce the use of temporary agency staff.

Note The Greater London Authority’s Consolidated Budget and Component

5 Budgets for 2009-10 estimated that at “31 March 2010 the general
balance is expected to total some £3.4m” (p.9). Budget 2009-10 net
revenue expenditure for 2009-10 was £60.4m excluding the Olympic
Funding Agreement.

Note MD467 states at 3.11 “The Authority’s general reserves totalled

6 £5.914m at 31 March 2009 and earmarked reserves totalled
£17.571m. Of this, £5.995m relates to the 2012 elections.”
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor-decisions/docs/20091109-
md467-gla-budget.pdf
PART B: Proposal to approve, with amendments, the Draft
Consolidated Budget for the 2010-11 financial year for the
Greater London Authority and the Functional Bodies.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAL BUDGET AMENDMENT
1. The Mayor’s 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 £121,534,753
London
Greater London Authority: London £8,600,000
Assembly
Metropolitan Police Authority £2,689,700,000
London Fire and Emergency Planning £412,900,000
Authority
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]
___________________________________________________________________________
NOTES:
a. A simple majority of votes cast by Assembly members is required to
approve any amendment to recommendations (1) to (3) above
concerning the Draft Consolidated Budget; abstentions are not
counted.
b. To approve the Draft Consolidated Budget, without amendment, only
a simple majority of votes cast is required. Again, abstentions are not
counted.
 SCHEDULE

Part 1: Greater London Authority: Mayor of London (“Mayor”) draft

component 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
proposal amendment
(1) £342,300,00 £340,792,35 estimated expenditure of the Mayor calculated
0 3 in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act
(2) £500,000 £500,000 estimated allowance for contingencies for the
Mayor under s85(4)(b) of the Act
(3) £5,000,000 £5,000,000 estimated reserves to be raised for meeting
future expenditure of the Mayor under s85(4)(c)
of the Act
(4) £0 £0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account
deficit of the Mayor under s85(4)(d) of the Act
(5) £347,800,0 £345,942,35 aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
00 3 in s85(4) of the Act for the Mayor (lines (1) + (2)
+ (3) + (4) above)
(6) - - estimate of Mayor's income calculated in
£227,500,00 £227,800,00 accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act
0 0
(7) £5,800,000 £3,042,40 estimate of Mayor’s reserves to be used in
0 meeting amounts in lines (1) and (2) above
under s85(5)(b) of the Act
(8) - - aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
£221,700,0 £224,757,60 in section 85(5) of the Act for the Mayor (lines
00 0 (6) + (7))
(9) £126,100,0 £121,534,75 the component budget requirement for Mayor
00 3 (being the amount by which the aggregate at (5)
above exceeds the aggregate at (8) above
calculated in accordance with section 85(6) of
the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the Mayor for 2010-11
is: £ 121,534,753
[insert Line 9 figure]
 Part 2: Greater London Authority: London Assembly (“Assembly”)
draft component 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
proposal amendmen
t
(10) £8,600,000 £8,600,000 estimated expenditure of the Assembly for the
year calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a)
of the Act
(11) £0 £0 estimated allowance for contingencies for the
Assembly under s85(4)(b) of the Act
(12) £0 £0 estimated reserves to be raised for meeting
future expenditure of the Assembly under
s85(4)(c) of the Act
(13) £0 £0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue
account deficit of the Assembly under s85(4)
(d) of the Act
(14) £8,600,000 £8,600,00 aggregate of the amounts for the items set
0 out in s85(4) of the Act for the Assembly (lines
(10) + (11) + (12) + (13) above)
(15) £0 £0 estimate of the Assembly’s income calculated
in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act
(16) £0 £0 estimate of the Assembly’s reserves to be
used 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 set
out in section 85(5) of the Act for the
Assembly (lines (15) + (16))
(18) £8,600,000 £8,600,00 the draft component budget requirement for
0 the Assembly (being the amount by which the
aggregate at (14) above exceeds the
aggregate at (17) above calculated in
accordance with section 85(6) of the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the Assembly for 2010-
11 is: £8,600,000
[insert Line 18 figure]
 Part 3: Metropolitan Police Authority (“MPA”) draft
component 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
proposal amendment
(19) £3,645,000,0 £3,661,400,000 estimated expenditure of the MPA for the year
00 calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the
Act
(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 meeting
future expenditure of the MPA under s85(4)(c)
of the Act
(22) £0 £0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue
account deficit of the MPA under s85(4)(d) of
the Act
(23) £3,645,000, £3,661,400, aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
000 000 in s85(4) of the Act for the MPA (lines (19) +
(20) + (21) + (22) above)
(24) - - estimate of the MPA’s income calculated in
£967,500,00 £967,500,0 accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act
0 00
(25) -£4,200,000 -£4,200,000 estimate of MPA’s reserves to be used in
meeting amounts in lines (19) and (20) above
under s85(5)(b) of the Act
(26) - - aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
£971,700,0 £971,700,0 in section 85(5) of the Act for the MPA (lines
00 00 (24) + (25))
(27) £2,673,300, £2,689,700,0 the draft component budget requirement for
000 00 the MPA (being the amount by which the
aggregate at (23) above exceeds the aggregate
at (26) above calculated in accordance with
section 85(6) of the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the MPA for 2010-11 is:
£2,689,700,000
[insert Line 27 figure]
 Part 4: London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (“LFEPA”)
draft component 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
proposal amendment
(28) £469,200,00 £470,000,000 estimated expenditure of LFEPA for the year
0 calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the
Act
(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) of
the Act
(31) £0 £0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue
account deficit of LFEPA under s85(4)(d) of the
Act
(32) £469,200,0 £470,500,0 aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
00 00 in s85(4) of the Act for LFEPA (lines (28) + (29)
+ (30) + (31) above)
(33) - - estimate of LFEPA’s income calculated in
£31,900,000 £31,900,00 accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act
0
(34) £0 - estimate of LFEPA’s reserves to be used in
£25,200,00 meeting amounts in lines (28) and (29) above
0 under s85(5)(b) of the Act
(35) - - aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
£31,900,00 £57,100,00 in section 85(5) of the Act for LFEPA (lines (33)
0 0 + (34))
(36) £437,300,0 £412,900,0 the draft component budget requirement for
00 00 LFEPA (being the amount by which the
aggregate at (32) above exceeds the aggregate
at (35) above calculated in accordance with
section 85(6) of the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for LFEPA for 2010-11 is:
£412,900,000
[insert Line 36 figure]
 Part 5: Transport for London (“TfL”) draft component 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
proposal amendmen
t
(37) £9,076,000,0 £9,075,000, estimated expenditure of TfL for the year
00 000 calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the
Act
(38) £84,000,000 £84,000,0 estimated allowance for contingencies for TfL
00 under s85(4)(b) of the Act
(39) £0 £0 estimated reserves to be raised for meeting
future expenditure of TfL under s85(4)(c) of the
Act
(40) £0 £0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account
deficit of TfL under s85(4)(d) of the Act
(41) £9,160,000, £9,159,000, aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
000 000 in s85(4) of the Act for TfL (lines (37) + (38) +
(39) + (40) above)
(42) - - estimate of TfL’s income calculated in
£8,659,000,0 £8,658,000,0 accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act
00 00

(43) - - estimate of TfL’s reserves to be used in meeting

£489,000,000 £489,000, amounts in lines (37) and (38) above under
000 s85(5)(b) of the Act
(44) - - aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
£9,148,000, £9,158,000,0 in section 85(5) of the Act for TfL (lines (42) +
000 00
(43))
(45) £12,000,000 £1,000,00 the component budget requirement for TfL
0 (being the amount by which the aggregate at
(41) above exceeds the aggregate at (44) above
calculated in accordance with section 85(6) of
the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for TfL for 2010-11 is:
£1,000,000
[insert Line 45 figure]
 Part 6: London Development Agency (“LDA”) draft component 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
Proposal amendment
(46) £335,300,00 £335,300,0 estimated expenditure of the LDA for the year
0 00 calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the
Act
(47) £3,000,000 £3,000,000 estimated allowance for contingencies for the
LDA under s85(4)(b) of the Act
(48) £0 £0 estimated reserves to be raised for meeting
future expenditure of the LDA under s85(4)(c) of
the Act
(49) £0 £0 estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account
deficit of the LDA under s85(4)(d) of the Act
(50) £338,300,0 £338,300,0 aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
00 00 in s85(4) of the Act for the LDA (lines (46) + (47)
+ (48) + (49) above)
(51) - - estimate of the LDA’s income calculated in
£319,700,00 £319,700,0 accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act
0 00
(52) - - estimate of the LDA’s reserves to be used in
£18,600,000 £18,600,00 meeting amounts in lines (46) and (47) above
0 under s85(5)(b) of the Act
(53) - - aggregate of the amounts for the items set out
£338,300,0 £338,300,0 in section 85(5) of the Act for the LDA (lines (51)
00 00 + (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) above
calculated in accordance with section 85(6) of
the Act)

The draft component budget requirement for the LDA for 2010-2011
is: £0
[insert Line 54 figure]
Part 7: The Greater London Authority (“GLA") draft consolidated 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 column
2 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 4
Line Mayor’s Budget Description
proposed amendment’s
consolidated proposed
budget consolidated
requirement
budget
requirement
(55) £3,257,300,000 £3,233,734,753 the GLA’s consolidated budget
requirement (the sum of the
amounts in lines (9) + (18) +
(27) + (36) + (45) + (54))
calculated in accordance with
section 85(8) of the Act

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

£3,233,734,753

[insert Line 55 figure]