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: Seconded by: Mike Tuffrey 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 deprioritise 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 refocus 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 halfprice 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 money for all London 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 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 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 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.

Additional cost 2010/11 £8.9 million

Explanato ry notes Note 1

£450,000

Note 2

£14.76 million

Note 3

£1.27 million

Note 4

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 the MPA
Identified Savings 2010/11 Explanatory notes

Limousines and Chauffeurs 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 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 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 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

£1.615 million

Note 5

£0.57 million

Note 6

£3.035 million

Note 7

£3.76 million

Note 8

The Mayor allocates a proportion of the GLA 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

£16.4 million

Note 9

£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.
Staffing requirements in the draft Policing London Business Plan 2010-13, for the year 2010/11: Staffing requirements (excl. Police Staff) Police Officers Recruits PCSOs Special Constables Traffic Wardens TOTAL Staffing requirements Police Staff Budget 2010/11 32,865 264 4,716 5,330 219 43,394 Budget 2010/11 14,944

Note 2

TOTAL MPS STAFFING 2010/11

58,338

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 Number of sets of epaulettes required Cost per set of epaulettes Total cost of epaulettes Allowance for 100% turnover of staff 43,394 86,788 £2.02 £175,312 £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 badges Number of badges required Add 5% buffer Cost per badge 58,338 116,676 122,500 £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 Population Gun Enabled Crime ** Incidents Rate Rank in the 12 per months to 1,000 Nov 09* people 274,500 261,600 278,000 212,200 226,200 223,200 270,600 249,500 168,900 222,900 2008 Population ** 242 229 224 162 159 149 175 132 88 112 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.76 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.53 0.52 0.50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of MPS officers in Boroug h 1021 673 947 767 716 573 706 791 442 701 Number of MPS officers in Boroug h 947 791 573 1021 767 442 697 716 1619 793

Numb er of Wards

Lambeth Lewisham Southwark Hackney Haringey Waltham Forest Brent Newham Barking & Dagenham Greenwich Borough Name

21 18 21 19 19 20 21 20 17 17 Numb er of Wards

Knife Crime
Incidents in the 12 months to Nov 09* Rate Rank per 1,000 people 2.80 2.69 2.58 2.43 2.26 2.20 2.11 2.10 2.09 2.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Southwark Newham Waltham Forest Lambeth Hackney Barking & Dagenham Islington Haringey Westminster Tower Hamlets

278,000 249,500 223,200 274,500 212,200 168,900 190,900 226,200 236,000 220,500

778 670 576 667 480 371 403 476 493 443

21 20 20 21 19 17 16 19 20 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 4
We propose to expand the existing Paladin team by funding the following additional posts: Cost including overheads £216,000 £480,000 £696,000

3 Detective Sergeant 8 Detective Constables Total

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 5
The table below illustrates how £1.6 million could be saved by abolishing cars and chauffeurs for all senior officers with the exception of officers who require these for security purposes. Cars for MPS ACPO officers to be abolished No. No of cars (average cost over 3 years = £31,000) No of 'cash equivalent' Insurance pa Petrol - two fill ups a week Service Driver/on costs Total identified savings 32 2 32 32 32 24 Cost pa £ 10,333 10,333 325 7,800 1,000 40,500 Total cost 330,667 20,667 10,400 249,600 32,000 972,000 1,615,33 3

Note 6

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. The table below shows MPS expenditure on travel in 2008/9: Business Groups Economy Busines First s Grand Total Funde Cost to d by Met Externa l Sources 50,846 0 0 0 0 Cost to Met excludi ng econom y 58,272 9,818 69,899 1,948 33,292 19,326 33,673 1,040 7,624 1,519 0 0 0 441,058 74,438 569,170

Central Operations D/ Comm's Portfolio Public Affairs Information HR and Log Services MPA Olympics Security Resources Specialist Crime Territorial Policing Grand Total

48,454 36,226 908 25,668 17,807

47,583 13,080 109,118 25,223 1,041 7,625 608 8,450 0 0 911 69,899 1,948 33,292 19,326

240 0 0 240 0 240 8,662 69,490 0 78,152 78,152 0 5,699 0 0 5,699 0 5,699 338,429 437,244 6,309 781,982 2,495 779,487 368,373 118,882 0 487,255 44,444 442,811 850,466 707,696 28,750 4,961,78 3,548,67 1,410,97 0 6 4

Lib Dem identified savings

569,17 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 Overtime Total Pay and Overtime Running expenses Employee related expenditure Premises costs Transport costs Supplies and services Total Running expenses Total Expenditure Less income Net expenditure Lib Dem identified savings 3,799 122 3,921 1,900 61 1,961

72 17 38 3,036 3,163 7,084 -226 6,858

36 10 19 2,024 2,089 4,050 -226 3,824 3,035

Note 8 Note 9

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 of £3.76 million. The Mayor’s draft budget shows (p. 66, para 8.4) the Council Tax for Police Services as follows: 2009-10 £m 2,640.3 -1,978.3 662.0 2010-11 £m 2,673.3 -2,027.7 645.6

MPA Budget Requirement General Government Funding Council Tax Amount for Police 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
Democrat proposals

LFEPA Budget Proposals

Increased expenditure - Liberal
Additional Explanato Cost ry Notes 2010-11 £0.6million Note 1

Restore Building Energy Efficiency 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 refurbishment When refurbished these listed cottages will be available for accommodation for firefighters Total Increased expenditure

£0.7million

Note 2

£1.3million

Increased expenditure funded by:
Liberal Democrat Proposals for savings in LFEPA Review training procurement expenses 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 LFEPA’s officers advise a prudent level of 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 Identified savings 2010-11 £0.5million Explanato ry note Note 3

£25.2millio n

Note 4

£25.7millio n

Explanatory notes on identified savings Note 1
The Mayor launched the Building Energy Efficiency Programme 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

Note 2

Note 3

Note 4

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. 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. 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. The Mayor’s draft budget includes a proposal for £950,000 in 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. LFEPA currently anticipates holding £38.1million by the end of 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
Firefighte r' Pension £'ms 2.021 PFI £'ms 17.816 (1.618) (1.604) 1.275 (0.539) 0.800 0.031 0.045 0.500 2.021 (0.250) 18.818 (16.606) (1.580) (1.547) 14.622 1.771 0.631 0.000 1.500 0.541 1.980 39.753 (14.324) 12.655 1.771 0.631 0.000 1.500 0.541 1.980 38.084 0.000 1.500 2.088 1.083 1.980 7.402 25.131 LGPS Pension Contributio ns £'ms 1.485 (1.485) Maintenan ce & Minor Works £'ms 2.000 (0.500) Sustainabil ity £'ms 3.692 London Resilience £'ms 2.933 (2.037) General £'ms 35.132 (16.895) Total £'ms 65.079 (20.916) (1.618) (1.604) 1.275 (0.539) 0.800 0.031 0.045 1.583 7.402 51.538 (16.856) (1.580) (1.547) 14.622 46.177 (14.324) 12.655 44.508

Balances @ 31/03/07 Provisional Financing Pumping Improvement Programme Provisional drawings Excess PFI grant 2007-08 Approved Drawings Interest Allocations CAA/PFI Adj Outturn - additional interest allocation Outturn - specific Outturn - general Balances @ 31/03/08 Provisional Financing Pumping Improvement Programme Provisional drawings Outturn Anticipated Balance @ 31/03/09 Provisional Financing Outturn Anticipated Balance @ 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 Democrat proposals Liberal

Additional cost 2010/11 £3 million

Explanato ry notes Note 1

Tackling Fare evasion 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 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 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 3 boroughs 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

£1.3 million

Note 2

£25million

Note 3

£0.3 million

Note 4

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 walking in London with boroughs. 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

£1.8 million

Note 5

£31.4 million

Increased expenditure funded by:

Identified Savings 2010/11

Explanato ry notes

50% cut in bonus payments to 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 enforcement 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 existing routes

£2.7million

Note 6

£10.2millio n

Note 1 also

£18million

Note 7

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 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 £11.5millio n Note 8

£42.4milli on

Note 1

‘Fare evasion costs Londoners £70 million a year’ – (Source - page 48 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 2

Costing done by Colin Buchanan and Partners in 2007 was £1.2 million, 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 3

In the 3rd quarter of 2008/09 there were 102 million Pay As You Go 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 4

One quarter of all the adults in London own a bike, equating to over 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 5 Note 6

In 2008/09 TfL spent £9m on supporting walking initiatives in the boroughs. We believe a considerable boost for additional signage and maps is needed to increase walking in the Capital. In answer to MQT 2937/2009 £5,341,140 was paid to this group of TfL employees in 2008/09.

Note 7

Bendy Bus Withdrawal timetable: 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 8

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 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-wage2009.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 Democrat proposals Liberal Democrat proposal Liberal

Fund initial feasibility study of an inner London LEZ

Additional Explanato cost ry notes 2010/11 £50,000

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 Savings 2010/11 £126,800 £300,000

Explanato ry notes Note 1 Note 2

Savings in Marketing and Mayoral Communications 10% reduction in Marketing budget Increased event sponsorship Savings in marketing and publicity for the non-statutory public meetings the Mayor has 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 2008 levels. Use of reserves Additional reduction of the General Reserve to 3% of 2009/10 non-Olympic budget 10% reduction in earmarked reserves, excluding the election reserve Total savings 2010/11 Budget requirement

£120,000

Note 3

£1,310,847

Note 4

£1,600,000 £1,157,600

Note 5 Note 6

£4,565,247 £121,534,753

APPENDIX 4 Greater London Authority Budget Proposals cont…
Explanatory notes to our proposals Note 1 Note 2 Marketing budget 2009/10 was £1,268,00. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/docs/strategic-plan09-12app1.pdf, p.41 The sponsorship team raised £1.1m in 2006/7 (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-md358-GLA-LDA-joint-funding-signed.pdf).

Note 3

Note 4

There is a statutory duty on the Mayor and Assembly to hold 2 People’s 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). Reduce use of Temporary staff to their May 2008 levels. Annual spend 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
08 Ju l-0 Se 8 p08 No v08 Ja n0 M 9 ar -0 M 9 ay -0 9 Ju l-0 9 M ay -

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 Sep-08 63 159,852.68 Oct-08 64 198,044.37 Nov-08 58 164,861.12 Dec-08 63 205,229.12 Jan-09 66 232,388.86 Feb-09 74 248,357.04 Mar-09 79 457,395.29 Apr-09 70 -121,094.96 May-09 69 237,173.28 Jun-09 68 259,109.31 Jul-09 79 272,461.70 Aug-09 73 230,369.30 Total 3,127,830.66

Costs for a year Sep-08 63 159,852.68 Oct-08 64 198,044.37 Nov-08 58 164,861.12 Dec-08 63 205,229.12 Jan-09 66 232,388.86 Feb-09 74 248,357.04 Mar-09 79 457,395.29 Apr-09 70 -121,094.96 May-09 69 237,173.28 Jun-09 68 259,109.31 Jul-09 79 272,461.70 Aug-09 73 230,369.30 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 5

The Greater London Authority’s Consolidated Budget and Component 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. MD467 states at 3.11 “The Authority’s general reserves totalled £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/20091109md467-gla-budget.pdf

Note 6

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 Greater London Authority: Mayor of London Greater London Authority: London Assembly Metropolitan Police Authority London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Transport for London London Development Agency Component budget requirement £121,534,753 £8,600,000 £2,689,700,000 £412,900,000 £1,000,000 £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 Line (1) (2) (3)
2 Mayor’s proposal £342,300,00 0 £500,000 £5,000,000

3 Budget amendment
£340,792,35 3 £500,000 £5,000,000

4 Description estimated expenditure of the Mayor calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act estimated allowance for contingencies for the Mayor under s85(4)(b) of the Act estimated reserves to be raised for meeting future expenditure of the Mayor under s85(4)(c) of the Act estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account deficit of the Mayor under s85(4)(d) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in s85(4) of the Act for the Mayor (lines (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) above) estimate of Mayor's income calculated in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act estimate of Mayor’s reserves to be used in meeting amounts in lines (1) and (2) above under s85(5)(b) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in section 85(5) of the Act for the Mayor (lines (6) + (7)) the component budget requirement for Mayor (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)

(4) (5)

£0 £347,800,0 00 £227,500,00 0 £5,800,000

£0 £345,942,35 3 £227,800,00 0 0 £3,042,40

(6)

(7)

(8)

£221,700,0 00 £126,100,0 00

£224,757,60 0 £121,534,75 3

(9)

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 Line 3 4 Budget Description amendmen t £8,600,000 £8,600,000 estimated expenditure of the Assembly for the year calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act
2 Mayor’s proposal £0 £0

(10)

(11) (12)

£0 £0

estimated allowance for contingencies for the Assembly under s85(4)(b) of the Act estimated reserves to be raised for meeting future expenditure of the Assembly under s85(4)(c) of the Act estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account deficit of the Assembly under s85(4) (d) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in s85(4) of the Act for the Assembly (lines (10) + (11) + (12) + (13) above) estimate of the Assembly’s income calculated in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act 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 aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in section 85(5) of the Act for the Assembly (lines (15) + (16)) the draft component budget requirement for 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)

(13)

£0

£0

(14)

£8,600,000

£8,600,00 0 £0 £0

(15) (16)

£0 £0

(17)

£0

£0

(18)

£8,600,000

£8,600,00 0

The draft component budget requirement for the Assembly for 201011 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 Line (19)
2 Mayor’s proposal £3,645,000,0 00 £0 £0

3 Budget amendment
£3,661,400,000

4 Description estimated expenditure of the MPA for the year calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act estimated allowance for contingencies for the MPA under s85(4)(b) of the Act estimated reserves to be raised for meeting future expenditure of the MPA under s85(4)(c) of the Act estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account deficit of the MPA under s85(4)(d) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in s85(4) of the Act for the MPA (lines (19) + (20) + (21) + (22) above) estimate of the MPA’s income calculated in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act estimate of MPA’s reserves to be used in meeting amounts in lines (19) and (20) above under s85(5)(b) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in section 85(5) of the Act for the MPA (lines (24) + (25)) the draft component budget requirement for 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)

(20) (21)

£0 £0

(22)

£0

£0

(23)

£3,645,000, 000 £967,500,00 0 -£4,200,000

£3,661,400, 000 £967,500,0 00 -£4,200,000

(24)

(25)

(26)

£971,700,0 00 £2,673,300, 000

£971,700,0 00
£2,689,700,0 00

(27)

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 Line (28)
2 Mayor’s proposal

3 Budget amendment £469,200,00 £470,000,000
0

4 Description estimated expenditure of LFEPA for the year calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act estimated allowance for contingencies for LFEPA under s85(4)(b) of the Act estimated reserves to be raised for meeting future expenditure of LFEPA under s85(4)(c) of the Act estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account deficit of LFEPA under s85(4)(d) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in s85(4) of the Act for LFEPA (lines (28) + (29) + (30) + (31) above) estimate of LFEPA’s income calculated in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act estimate of LFEPA’s reserves to be used in meeting amounts in lines (28) and (29) above under s85(5)(b) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in section 85(5) of the Act for LFEPA (lines (33) + (34)) the draft component budget requirement for 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)

(29) (30)

£0 £0

£0 £0

(31)

£0

£0

(32)

£469,200,0 00 £31,900,000 £0

£470,500,0 00 £31,900,00 0 £25,200,00 0 £57,100,00 0 £412,900,0 00

(33)

(34)

(35)

£31,900,00 0 £437,300,0 00

(36)

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 Line
2 Mayor’s proposal £9,076,000,0 00 £84,000,000 £0

3 Budget amendmen t
£9,075,000, 000

4 Description

(37)

estimated expenditure of TfL for the year calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act estimated allowance for contingencies for TfL under s85(4)(b) of the Act estimated reserves to be raised for meeting future expenditure of TfL under s85(4)(c) of the Act estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account deficit of TfL under s85(4)(d) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in s85(4) of the Act for TfL (lines (37) + (38) + (39) + (40) above) estimate of TfL’s income calculated in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act estimate of TfL’s reserves to be used in meeting amounts in lines (37) and (38) above under s85(5)(b) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in section 85(5) of the Act for TfL (lines (42) + (43)) the component budget requirement for TfL (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)

(38) (39)

£84,000,0 00 £0

(40) (41)

£0 £9,160,000, 000 £8,659,000,0 00 £489,000,000 £9,148,000, 000 £12,000,000

£0
£9,159,000, 000
£8,658,000,0 00

(42)

(43)

£489,000, 000
£9,158,000,0 00

(44)

(45)

£1,000,00 0

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 Line (46) 3 Budget amendment £335,300,00 £335,300,0 0 00
2 Mayor’s Proposal £3,000,000 £0

4 Description estimated expenditure of the LDA for the year calculated in accordance with s85(4)(a) of the Act estimated allowance for contingencies for the LDA under s85(4)(b) of the Act estimated reserves to be raised for meeting future expenditure of the LDA under s85(4)(c) of the Act estimate of reserves to meet a revenue account deficit of the LDA under s85(4)(d) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in s85(4) of the Act for the LDA (lines (46) + (47) + (48) + (49) above) estimate of the LDA’s income calculated in accordance with s85(5)(a) of the Act estimate of the LDA’s reserves to be used in meeting amounts in lines (46) and (47) above under s85(5)(b) of the Act aggregate of the amounts for the items set out in section 85(5) of the Act for the LDA (lines (51) + (52)) 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)

(47) (48)

£3,000,000 £0

(49) (50)

£0 £338,300,0 00 £319,700,00 0 £18,600,000 £338,300,0 00 £0

£0 £338,300,0 00 £319,700,0 00 £18,600,00 0 £338,300,0 00 £0

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

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 Line
2 Mayor’s proposed consolidated budget requirement

(55)

3 Budget amendment’s proposed consolidated budget requirement £3,257,300,000 £3,233,734,753

4 Description

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]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful