Appendix C

Mayor’s Question Time

21 May 2003

Transcript

1020 / 2003 - Cleaner Neighbourhoods Nicky Gavron What efforts has the Mayor made to promote the good practice of the London Borough of Croydon in using neighbourhood wardens to help clean up local communities?

The Mayor: We are very keen to clean up London’s streets. The neighbourhood wardens scheme is one that is running in several boroughs across London. Croydon’s scheme involves eight wardens on three estates and is set to expand with seven more wardens covering several smaller estates. I am promoting all types of good practice in maintaining the street environment through the Capital Standards programme. The member boroughs are able to share best practice with each other and get advice from other boroughs. Croydon is a very active member of Capital Standards with a representative on the Steering Group, who also chairs the Graffiti Working Group.

Nicky Gavron (Assembly Member): You quite rightly mention Croydon, as they are leading the way on the improving the environment in council estates. Having visited them and seen the way they are linking up their neighbourhood wardens with their local youth workers, and diverting young people from antisocial behaviour, I think it is absolutely exemplary; everyone should beat a path and see what has been done on Addington and Field Way estates. As a result, I have called for the scheme to be expanded across London so that more communities can benefit from neighbourhood wardens.

However, I want to ask: does the Mayor think there is anything significant in the fact that the five boroughs which are refusing to spread best practice, such as the scheme that I have mentioned on New Addington and Field Way, are all currently Conservative controlled?

The Mayor: I do think there has been a sad tendency in the minority of boroughs that are Conservative controlled to just opt out, like they have Conservatism in one borough while the rest of London can go to hell. Capital Standards grows out of the Tidy Britain group: completely non-partisan. The question is: do you want London cleaned up, or not? Labour boroughs cooperated with Mrs Thatcher while she and Lady Porter did their photo opportunity out at the back of Number 10; we do not want to clean up London because Mrs Thatcher and Lady Porter are doing it – they did their best to

1 cooperate. Whether you like it or not, you have to accept the fact that I have been elected Mayor of London; if some Conservative boroughs think that is a reason for not cooperating with obvious good things for London, I think they are betraying their residents.

Nicky Gavron (Assembly Member): I cannot add anything to that; I agree.

Samantha Heath (Assembly Member): To follow on from that, I would like to bring Members’ attention to that hotbed of socialism, Westminster, which has joined the Capital Standards programme because through their enforcement regime and every performance indicator that you look at, it is very clear that they care about the quality of their streets and how they clear the streets. They have joined Capital Standards because they care about the streets and not about political ideology in the way that the other boroughs that Nicky was referring to have mentioned.

Lewisham, Southwark, Croydon and Camden are all doing great things on enviro-crime and cleaning up litter. The real problem that I can raise here, and which I want you to look at, is that these boroughs are actually working to look at the perception of the cleanliness of their streets, which is completely different from where the best value performance indicators currently look at. So, the perception is something that we need to tackle.

Under Capital Standards, that perception is going to be monitored. It could look as though Westminster, Camden and Lewisham – the boroughs that are really striving ahead to deal with their residents’ concerns – are going to look poorer when we can look at the new figures. How are we going to compare apples with apples and make sure that boroughs that are looking seriously at this problem, and not just propagandising, are actually going to be monitored effectively and not compared to boroughs which obviously do not give a hoot?

The Mayor: What has been quite interesting, and this anticipates a later question by Tony Arbour, is that as you know we published the most recent figures in the May edition of The Londoner. Those figures were published in March 2002 by the Audit Commission; presumably the Audit Commission collected them in the previous year. They are the most recent figures. The polls show very high ratings by the councils about what they thought were acceptable standards.

Since then, we have had 200 responses in from Londoners writing in having read that: 100% of those responses believe the boroughs’ returns do not reflect the state of London’s streets. 20 of the replies were from Richmond, all disagreeing with the position that we reported: that 78% of the streets were cleaned to an acceptable standard. Hence, I think the official Audit Commission figures do not reflect what the public believes about their streets. I do think it is silly for Tony to fly off in a huff and withdraw from Capital Standards. I am quite happy to put him in touch with his constituents, who think his streets need a bit more cleaning.

Samantha Heath (Assembly Member): The point here is that it is the

2 perception. Not that I want to make all boroughs knuckle down – this is really something that we need to engage with boroughs on, but the real question is: do we need to tackle this issue? It is a question of you dealing with the Audit Commission to make sure that the best value performance indicator does deal with perception effectively, so that we are comparing properly. Have you had any conversations with the Audit Commission on that?

The Mayor: We will meet with the Audit Commission to look at this, but it might be that a more detailed poll conducted jointly by the ALG and the GLA, to examine perceptions borough-by-borough would provide a more accurate approach. Londoners are not stupid: however bad it might be at the moment, if they see a borough council really upping its game, putting the resources in, with the political leadership in that borough giving it the attention it deserves, they will recognise that. Therefore, you could have a dramatic turnaround in boroughs like Hackney if they get their act together, even though they were only 50% on the Audit Commission figures.

Jennette Arnold (Assembly Member): You would agree with me that a cleaner neighbourhood equals a cleaner London, which then equals a positive factor in attracting more visitors to London. Can you tell us how you can use, if you like, your growing influence and relationship with the business community to get them to work with local boroughs. Without a doubt, if you look at the increase in fast food outlets, they have got to be responsible for the increased level of litter. If you look at the lock-up shops and the units that people come and rent open from nine to five, and then just leave their litter outside – that is an issue for a neighbourhood.

What can you do when you are meeting with your business colleagues to get them hooked up to the work that has been done in these boroughs, especially the ones that Nicky has identified?

The Mayor: Without being specific about individual boroughs, I have to say that London’s business community representatives are not great advocates of the quality of service that they see coming from borough councils. I think the business community is strongly in favour of widespread reform and reconstruction of borough government. Clearly, the best way forward in this would be to press ahead with the American prospect of having a local business rate that local business voluntarily agrees to levy on itself, which then goes into specific targeted improvements. We have seen some of that, where shops in Oxford Street have come together to pay for wardens on the streets, to have improved levels of security. It could well be that local businesses come together with their borough council to contribute more to driving a better level of service, cleanliness and refuse collection in the areas that clearly need it.

I think there could be a universal compulsory commercial waste collection system. The ability of some businesses to opt out means that some freeload on the back of others; you do get dumping.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): I am sure the Deputy Mayor’s praise for

3 Croydon will be of some reassurance to the people of Croydon who were so disappointed when she failed to turn up for the Croydon Summit yesterday.

Can I go to the issue of neighbourhood wardens, and ask the Mayor if he shares the concerns frequently being expressed by Deputy Commissioner, Ian Blair, about what he calls ‘the Balkanisation of policing in London’ which led to the setting up of the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)? He believed that council-employed neighbourhood wardens have a very important and distinctive role to play, as they do in many boroughs, not just in Croydon. If that is his view, and it is certainly mine, what would he do to disseminate good practice regardless of which borough in which it occurs?

The Mayor: Clearly, the discussions that are taking place between the Metropolitan Police service and my Office about the forthcoming growth in Police Community Support Officers in the next few years up until 2006, gives a huge opportunity to use those people imaginatively to gain a lot of other benefits as well, if we move towards a dedicated team of police in each ward in London. What we would see is that many boroughs would want to come in and provide additional support and then get further dedicated officers so that we start to reclaim our parks and other public spaces.

All our surveys show that a large minority of Londoners fear to travel on the bus or go into their local park because of the perception of and fear of crime. A visible presence of wardens cleaning the area, getting rid of graffiti and policing the area will give people the confidence that they can move around the city without fear. I am sure the best boroughs will work with the MPA and my Office over the next few years to get magnified benefits from the expansion of the Police Community Support Officer scheme.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): Though not as a substitute for council-employed neighbourhood wardens, as has sometimes been suggested?

The Mayor: We would certainly be alert to any further diminution of service by boroughs on the back of the expansion of the MPS role.

Andrew Pelling (Assembly Member): I am always very pleased to hear positive comments about Croydon. I met with the wardens myself when I was out engaging with the good people of New Addington on Saturday afternoon. There was always a danger with mayoral candidates who inevitably have to pay brief visits to areas as to whether or not they get fully briefed.

Nicky Gavron (Assembly Member): I stayed for six hours.

Andrew Pelling (Assembly Member): I am surprised then that you did not mention in your question to Ken that the wardens had to be withdrawn owing to poor training and poor liaison with the police service. I wonder whether we can learn lessons from this supposedly exemplary process, as to the quality of training that takes place? This is in the context of the liaison between different policing forces that we now have in Croydon, regarding what can be

4 done to encourage better liaison between the different services when it comes to the stoning of the T31 bus service on Field Way. I had positive comments from Mr Hendy that he will try to direct bus marshals onto this service, bearing in mind what a nasty experience this is for both bus drivers and passengers.

If that issue is not solved, could I seek the Mayor’s intervention to try to encourage a temporary transfer of bus marshals to that route on Field Way?

The Mayor: I would be determined that that happens. Of course, this is exactly how we broke the problem elsewhere in London – very rapidly and effectively. If you can drop me a note later today, I will chat to Peter Hendy and make sure that we do switch the policing resources around and stop the stoning of buses.

Brian Coleman (Assembly Member): On the Capital Standards initiative, for the £15,000 that each of the boroughs were asked to contribute, I have employed an extra man with a broom in Barnet, who is a darn sight more use than sending a CD to every primary school and sending out videos, which is what the boroughs were getting for their £15,000. I am delighted to congratulate Tony Arbour, Leader of Richmond Council, which was chairing the Capital Standards initiative, who this week resigned from Capital Standards because it is a complete waste of officers’ time. Surely the Mayor would agree that officers should be delivering frontline services in the boroughs, not wasting their time sitting in endless meetings in city halls.

The Mayor: I think that getting across the important message – not to drop litter – to children in primary schools is most probably the single most important thing you can do. The reason that litter has become a problem is that it dropped off the education agenda, and our teachers taught us about not dropping litter. I will not bore you by reciting the little ditty from my schooldays – but it works. Therefore, I believe that the CDs that went to schools are absolutely vital in instilling in young children, as they grow up and go onto our streets, to treat with respect the streets and the city they live in.

982 / 2003 - Crossrail Bob Neill Was the Mayor consulted by the Department of Transport prior to the Secretary of State's comments reported on 1 May 2003 that plans to build Crossrail are likely to be further delayed? What discussions has he had with the Department since those comments were made?

The Mayor: On 13th May, the Secretary of State clarified his position regarding Crossrail in response to oral questions in the House of Commons. He stated, and I quote: "The Government continues to support the development of Crossrail. We are now evaluating proposals from the SRA and TfL to see whether they are financeable and deliverable. Let us be in no doubt that the East-West link is extremely important to the development not only of London but of the surrounding areas which will see substantial development in years to come. As I have told the House, I think Crossrail is

5 very important to London’s future development, but it is also important to get it right and we should be realistic about costs. I understand people’s frustration but it is important that we get this right.”

That is the end of the quote. TfL and the SRA submitted the interim business case for Crossrail to the Secretary of State in February. A decision whether or not to proceed with the hybrid bill was expected in March; the Secretary of State needs to make this announcement by the end of June, as I said earlier, for the submission of that hybrid bill in the next Parliamentary session. Any delay beyond June is likely to delay Crossrail for at least a year.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): The question originally related to the Secretary of State's comments on 1st May. Can I take it that the Mayor must have been surprised to hear the Secretary of State say on 1st May that Crossrail would take at least 10 years to build, and whilst it might be needed by 2020, there was no guarantee that it would be built before then? Of course, that is completely contrary to the view that the Mayor has expressed, of his understanding of the Government’s position. Were you surprised by that?

The Mayor: No, I was not surprised because I did not hear the Secretary of State say that: it was reported in a newspaper that, leaving a meeting, in an aside, the Secretary of State had said something. Knowing how often I have been misquoted going in and out of meetings, I paid it no credence. As soon as I had heard about this press report, I talked to John Ross, who said that there has been no change in the attitudes of Government ministers he was dealing with. Our staff are still engaged in work detailed with the Government on this; we are still talking about being able to build Crossrail for £7 billion.

This alarming figure of £15 billion comes from the fact that the Treasury now requires that we include, on every project, an extra 66% increase in the cost for projected cost overruns. That does not get you up to £15 billion. To get up to £15 billion, you also have to include financing costs if you decided to borrow in the most expensive PPP way imaginable. The case is, quite simply: Bob Kiley’s advice to me is that this can be constructed for £7 billion.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): Then why was it that Bob Kiley told the Transport Committee on 3rd April that the estimated cost was £12-13 billion?

The Mayor: By complying with the Treasury rules, you have to include a 66% cost overrun. No doubt there will also be some financing element.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): You told the Transport Committee on 3rd April: “Construction will start in 2005 and hopefully finish in 2007.” That was clearly baloney, was it not?

The Mayor: If you start in 2005, you are not going to build this by 2007; we are talking about a five-year construction period.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): That was obviously nonsense, was it not?

6

The Mayor: Of course, I am sure I did not say it.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): I am only going from the minutes of the Transport Committee.

The Mayor: Perhaps the minute-taker failed to detect the nuance of my south London accent. There has never been a document produced by anyone in TfL or my Office saying Crossrail could be completed by 2007. We talked about the possibility of doing the East London Line by 2007, but this will be a five-year project, which is why we want to get the most rapid possible processing of the hybrid bill so that this could be done in time for the Olympics.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): You told the Transport Committee: "I think we have virtually got to the point where the Government will shortly announce its support for Crossrail. I think we have won the argument in Government.” Then, on 13th May, the Minister says, “Well, we are going to see if it is financeable or not.” There is no argument won at all.

The Mayor: We were being told that there would be a decision before the May elections; this was clearly put off whilst the Cabinet devoted a lot of time to discussion on the situation in Iraq. It is still the case that we await the decision by Government; they have clearly slipped on their timetable – this is correct.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): On 7th March, you told Regeneration and Renewal magazine: “We have agreed the route of Crossrail; the Government will next month announce that it is to introduce the hybrid bill to create Crossrail.”

The Mayor: That is what I was being told by Government sources at that stage. We have agreed the route; there is no dispute about the route.

Angie Bray (Assembly Member): They really palm you off with a load of old rubbish.

The Mayor: The Government was telling us that they had made the decision in March; then it slipped to May; now it has slipped to June. I think that is sad – you are right. Unfortunately, I do not run the Government; if I did, you would have had a decision years ago.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): I take it from that that when you met the Secretary of State on 13th March, as you refer to in your report to us, he gave you no indication that the Government had slipped on its timeframe.

The Mayor: No. He was very optimistic, as he always is.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): It sounds like the Government has had you over, does it not?

7

The Mayor: No, it sounds like the Government timetable for decision making is slipping again. One of the criticisms is that it is often difficult to get a decision out of them. At the end of the day, we were originally promised a decision on the Olympics earlier on the year; it slipped and slipped and slipped. Had it not been for the fact that there is actually a deadline for submitting the preliminary application, I suspect it would still be slipping. We had slip after slip after slip on the East London Line; it was only when it came down to the fact that the whole project was in real jeopardy that they got their act together.

Even more dramatic, we waited a whole year for the Government to sign off on the decision to start the extension of the Docklands Light Rail to City Airport. It went right down to within seven days of us having to void the contract and restart the bidding process. It is only when there is a deadline the Government cannot move that you get a decision out of them. I regret this, but there is nothing I can do about it I am afraid.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): You told the Planning and SDS Committee last year that, unless Crossrail was delivered, you might as well rip up the London Plan and start again. You said that, without it, the London Plan would be inoperative. The London Plan runs effectively until 2020, 2016 all the figures; it is clear now from the Secretary of State that there is no prospect of Crossrail being delivered until the very end of the London Plan period. Are you going to rip up your plan and start again, or were you spoofing us all along?

The Mayor: No, I think the scale of growth we have in London would make London an almost impossible city to live in if we do not get the increased capacity on the rail system that Crossrail provides – more than any other single scheme. Even if we do not get a decision this year, myself and any successor will have to push this as the single biggest rail priority for London because, until it is built, London will face an impossibly congested and unpleasant situation by the end of the decade. It will be bad enough as we get close to the end of this decade even if it is being built. At least if it is being built, people will know relief is coming. If it is not being built, I think the government will start to pay a very heavy political price at the ballot box as elections roll by.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): I am very pleased to see that this scheme is actually going to be built. I hope there is not the continued slippage and problems over financing. It is a matter of concern that you and the Secretary of State disagree so much about the cost of this scheme. On 13th May, the Secretary of State said: "My experience over the past 12 months has been that costs relating to railways, in particular, usually turn out to be rather higher than originally anticipated.” He has 12 months’ experience of transport: what makes you so certain that you are right and he is wrong?

The Mayor: I have 30 years experience of transport projects. I would actually point out that all the major schemes that I have been responsible for through

8 TfL have come in virtually to time and virtually to cost. I refer to the removal work in Shoreditch. Vauxhall Cross slipped a month because of the impact of the firemen’s strike and the impact on policing at a key point. Of course, there is also the success of the congestion charge in coming in on time. Providing you set a proper contract, there is no reason that you get delays or cost overruns.

It would have been painful for Capita if they had delayed; they are tied by costs and they have delivered it. Therefore, structuring the contracts for Crossrail and the various things, and getting good project managers, is the key to success here. It does mean you pay for them – that is why we employ many highly paid people in TfL: they deliver on time and to cost.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): On 13th May, the Secretary of State also stated that in his opinion it would be foolish and misleading to suggest that a scheme of such magnitude could be done on the cheap. Is it not foolish and misleading to compare Crossrail with your work in Shoreditch or Vauxhall Cross? The magnitude of the schemes is quite different.

The Mayor: The magnitude of the schemes is enormously greater, but I want to make clear that there is no disagreement about costs.

The Secretary of State is accepting Treasury policy that you have to allow for a 66% cost overrun on any project. For the national Treasury to have a framework of thinking that, on every single project it is considering, you allow for a two-thirds overrun is the wrong approach. You should be thinking of who you sack or who you financially penalise for cost overruns, not build them in from the beginning. It is bizarre.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Elizabeth Howlett (Assembly Member): You said that Bob Kiley has estimated the Crossrail 1 cost at £7 billion: have you told that to the Secretary of State and does he believe you?

The Mayor: Yes. The Secretary of State’s figure is, as I said, adding in the 66% cost overrun and then considering a method of financing we would prefer not to go with. Bob Kiley’s belief is that this contract can be let in chunks totalling £7 billion. Obviously, the best way for us to fund that would be a Treasury-backed bond. It would be good if the Government just gave us the power to go and do it because I think with the discipline of the market, you could raise this money on a bond backed by the £8 billion expenditure of the GLA group of authorities.

Elizabeth Howlett (Assembly Member): Can you tell me about the chance of Crossrail 2 now? You have always been very supportive of both Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2. In fact, the only piece of transport infrastructure we will get in the next decade is the East London line. What about the chance of Crossrail 2? What about the Olympics? How on earth are we going to be travelling athletes and spectators all over London without Crossrail and

9 Crossrail 2? Everyone now seems to be backtracking on the need of this transport infrastructure for the Olympics.

The Mayor: The position is that you clearly could do the Olympics without Crossrail 1, or certainly without Crossrail 2, because you will be in a position where the Olympics will be held in August: there is 10% less pressure on the transport system. I am optimistic that we will by that stage have extended the congestion zone westwards to the borders of Kensington and Hammersmith. We were originally thinking of taking in Tower Hamlets; clearly, one would think to extend it to include the Olympic Village. Hence, you would have tremendous ability to manage the traffic flows in the area for a short period of time. It can be done.

Bear in mind the expansion of the bus service: we have had a 30% increase in bus ridership in three years. If this continues, we are heading towards a massively more extensive and efficient bus system in London.

Richard Barnes (Assembly Member): Much as we do not seem to be involved in the debate, west London does need it for its sustained economic growth and the driving power that it has for London. Finance does not seem to be one of your best areas this morning. You have just said that you could finance Crossrail with an £8 billion bond, backed by the £8 billion expenditure on the GLA. However, not so long ago you were also saying that you needed a congestion charge around Heathrow so that it too contributed to Crossrail. You seem to be financing it from a number of different ways.

If Crossrail does not happen, will you scrap all pretensions to a congestion charge at Heathrow?

The Mayor: No. There are other factors which would still lead you to look at a congestion charge at Heathrow. If we did not get Crossrail, you would want to look at implementing other public transport improvements to reduce the proportion of people driving to Heathrow.

Richard Barnes (Assembly Member): BAA has just published its response to the RUCATSE report, which included a positive statement about a fourth runway at Heathrow, which everybody ignores, and the need for another terminal if that was built. How would that impact on Crossrail and your congestion charges? Do you support one and not the other?

The Mayor: I think there is a need for a congestion charge around Heathrow because of the scale of congestion and atmospheric pollution. I think one of the reasons we may eventually get Crossrail 2 is that the obvious alignment is a new line that runs from Clapham Junction out to Stansted. As someone who has not been persuaded of the case for another runway at Heathrow, my top priority would be the expansion of Stansted; my second priority is at Gatwick. Therefore, Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail 2 are all going to be essential to move millions of people to those airports.

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member): Ken, Crossrail is clearly taking up your

10 time and energy and your team’s time and energy. Is it worthwhile, when you have a project like Orbirail which could be done fairly cheaply and quickly, as far as railway is concerned? It would also relieve pressure on central London and would give you some part of your London Plan; it would also bring some huge benefits to some deprived communities along that route.

The Mayor: We are expecting a decision from the Court of Appeal on the East London line early in June. The money is there with the SRA; the thing would then go ahead and be built. That is a big chunk of Orbirail: it runs from Clapham Junction right round to Finsbury Park. One would then look very rapidly for the upgrading of the rest of the North London line. Thus, you would have three quarters of Orbirail. Then you come back to the question of the West London line, where we clearly would want that integrated. Hence, you have your final Orbirail.

Additionally, to please the local constituency member there would be a stop at Battersea Park.

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member): It is still something that can be done much more quickly. All it needs is political will; you could start by infilling some of the bits that will not be the East London and the West London Line.

The Mayor: We have got the permission from the Government to go ahead, and we hope to get the permission from the Court of Appeal to go ahead with the construction of the East London Line. That will have huge impact and potential for development of stations to some of the most deprived parts of south London. Val is taking me down to look at Brixton overland station to see what we can do with the upgrading of that as part of the East London Line going ahead. We continue to press for the West London route; I am committed to that.

The trouble is that we are dependent on the SRA and the developers along the route to give us that and get ahead with it. Clapham round to Finsbury Park is over half of Orbirail. Once it is there, the pressure to do the rest will be incredible.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): On 1st May, when Alistair Darling answered Ed Davey’s question about Crossrail, he insisted that we needed a proposition that is financeable and deliverable. In fact, he said it three times. You said that if we do not get the decision in June, we lose it for the Olympics. If we do not get it in the autumn, presumably it throws the London Plan completely out. Despite the work that Transport for London and the SRA have done in their bids, what is it now that is going to make it financeable and deliverable?

The Mayor: The London Plan was built around the hope that we would have Crossrail 1 completed during financial year 2011/12. We can still easily make that, particularly if a hybrid bill was driven through Parliament allowing five years for construction. As I said earlier, the Treasury is not our obstacle there. Equally, in all my discussions with the financial institutions in the City,

11 they believe that if the Government got out we can raise the money on the markets to actually build this.

Even though we are not getting as much money in from the congestion charge as we had originally planned, the revenue stream from that, from fares, from the general precept – all of those would be more than enough to guarantee the return on bonds and to construct Crossrail – as Liberals will always know, as lifelong adorers of the bond.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): Indeed, but there is no sign that they are going to go down that route though, is there?

The Mayor: No, I do not think we will go that route. Equally, however, we are not in a position where I can come to you and say, ‘The Government has decided not to build Crossrail.’ If it does, you will hear about it immediately; we will batter the Government around the head with it, as I am sure every London politician will, until the Government changes its mind. The Treasury is in there supporting this because of its benefits to the overall economy. The worries in the Department for Transport and the SRA are about committing so much of the transport budget to this.

John Biggs (Assembly Member): Unlike that of the other parties, the Labour position is one of unequivocal support for your position on Crossrail, regardless of what the Labour Government says. It is essential for London; it is a no-brainer that it needs to be built. It is obvious, given the frailty of the GLA that we have, that we are dependent on Government decision making to fund the thing.

I appreciate that we are heading towards an election, and was intrigued by Bob’s performance. Is there not a risk that the Tories and perhaps even the Liberals are talking down Crossrail as a consequence of their party bickering? It follows from that that there is a risk that London will be talked down in the election campaign for next year. I think that is a very real risk.

On the London regional metro proposal, which some people seem to be supporting, the problem is that it only includes half of Crossrail; it does not get to Docklands and it excludes all the sorts of costs which makes some people promote it and, at the same time, argue that it will make it deliverable. In fact, they know it will not. It will have the same overruns as many of the same projects in the past. Can you clarify that?

The Mayor: On that, I have to say, I think the game is being played by the consortium backing it: that is to make sure that we recognise them when we come to award the contract for the construction of the central tunnel. I think that is their game. I do not think that they seriously believe that if the money is not going to be available for a Crossrail that opens up 65 million square feet of developable space, that there will be money available for a Crossrail that does not open up the space. We think that their game is about bidding to be the consortium that constructs the central tunnel.

12 Sally Hamwee (Chair): We will move on to the next question. I would like to welcome students from Edgware School, who have just arrived.

916 / 2003 - Safety Cameras Jenny Jones Given the recent publicity about safety cameras being set at speeds well over the speed limit, what steps do you intend to take to ensure that speeding motorists in London are prosecuted?

The Mayor: I presume you refer to the article in The Evening Standard on Monday 14th April. Remarkably, I have been informed that this article contained a series of inaccuracies and as such should not be given much credence. I will say that it is very irresponsible of the newspaper to publish such details, whether the content was correct or incorrect. Setting the cameras is an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police service and the City of London Police. For obvious reasons, details are not made public; that is their decision. However, as part of the London Safety Camera Partnership, the MPS and the City of London Police are committed to meeting the standards set by the Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidelines.

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member): I did not have anything to do with the article. Before the article, my information for over a year was that the facts within it were substantially correct. So, we have been operating safety cameras at ludicrously high levels. Does it really matter whether that is correct or not? The fact is that at the moment, safety cameras are taken as a bit of a joke by the police. I am asking you now if you will help me in some way make the police and the Police Authority take this issue seriously.

For example, even if there is film in the cameras, and even if the films are processed afterwards, which apparently does not always happen as well, the fact is that they have something like a 40% collection rate on fines. In other places, they achieve 80%. I gather that the Transport for London team is getting 80%, but the fact is that the London Safety Camera Partnership cannot get to those levels. We need support from the police on this and we need support from the Police Authority.

The Mayor: I am not told and I have not been told what the guidelines set by the Chief Police Officers’ Association are. If I was told them I believe they should be in the public domain because I believe the law should be enforced as it is laid down. I believe the cameras should record people driving at over 30 miles per hour in a 30-miles-per-hour zone and they should be prosecuted. I do not believe there should be a margin built in. The Government, through Parliament, has decreed that there should be a 30-miles-per-hour limit, which I think should be enforced. I think we should go further than that, as some boroughs are doing, and define residential areas where the speed limit should be 20 miles per hour.

We know immediately, at a stroke, that we would cut child casualties by 70% if we had a 20-miles-per-hour speed limit around all our schools and in our

13 residential areas.

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member): I wonder if you could do two things. At TfL, could you ask for a report from the London Safety Camera Partnership, and ask them to comment on it, and to bring ideas on how things could be done more efficiently? Is that a possibility?

The Mayor: The policy of TfL is the policy I announced: we believe a 30-miles-per-hour speed limit should be enforced. We believe it should be supplemented London-wide by a 20-miles-per-hour speed limit and that should be enforced. We do not need a report: that is our policy. Unfortunately, I do not have operational control of the police, otherwise I would direct them to enforce that policy as it stands. In the same way, I would like to direct them to enforce a lot of other laws which have not been at the top of their priority.

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member): We have some papers coming to the Police Authority at the next meeting, which is actually setting up a murder investigation team that will have 135 extra officers. This is a new team. I am sorry that Toby Harris is not here, but the fact is that the traffic division of the police has been waiting for years; they are 77 officers short at the moment; they have 30 allocated which have not been sent; it has all been frozen. Is there no way that you can lean on the Commissioner? You must have meetings with him: is there no way that you can make it clear what your policies are on this issue?

The Mayor: I am happy to meet him again and to invite you there to discuss these issues. There is no disagreement between you and I on this. I believe the law should be enforced; I believe it should be a priority. Long before anyone even thought of having a Mayor of London, I was a supporter of various road safety campaigns which actually campaigned for a real increase in the penalties for people who commit murder by car. If somebody drives dangerously, it is as bad as if some idiot goes round the streets firing off a gun.

Valerie Shawcross (Assembly Member): Ken I am really glad to hear that basically you see that road safety goes beyond speed cameras; it goes into needing 20-mile an hour zones and special schemes around schools and playgrounds. I am pleased to hear that Transport for London have apparently said that £12 million will be going into such schemes locally over the next three years I think.

My concern is just to make sure that Transport for London takes account of the growing body of research that shows that children in the poorer areas, the deprived communities, are more at risk. I think it is important that our traffic engineers – and good engineers they are at TfL – do take account of some of the socio-economic factors that generate risk for people, particularly children, and that some of this money does go into areas that are also regeneration areas and poorer deprived areas. Is that something you think you are looking at?

14

The Mayor: It is. I may be wrong, but my recollection from the last time I looked at the figures, is that a child in the poorest 20% of London families was four times more likely to be subject to an accident on the roads. Now that is an incredible figure. Within Transport for London, in ticketing policy and everything else, we have a perspective that actually looks at how these impact on a class basis, or an income basis.

Certainly, I remember Frank Dobson making this point frequently during the Mayoral campaign, that if you shut your eyes while you were being driven around London as a candidate you knew whether you were in a well off or a poor area by whether or not there were speed bumps in it.

Valerie Shawcross (Assembly Member): Is that yes then?

The Mayor: That is a yes – a very long-winded yes.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): Those of us who listen to local radio were privileged to hear a TfL advertising campaign earlier this year attempting to make the cameras popular. What were the objectives of that ambitious campaign and how much did it cost?

The Mayor: We will let you know the details. I remember the campaign, but I cannot remember what the specification was. Most probably just broadly to raise the awareness of safer streets. There is a constant campaign by a small irresponsible part of the media and a few irresponsible radio DJs to depict speed cameras as some sort of communistic infringement of our basic human rights. They are not. They are there to enforce the law as much as the police officer walking down your street at night.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): The main thrust of that advertising campaign seemed to be to say, in fact it did say, that speed cameras are only placed in areas where there has been a history of accidents and casualties. Yet on 5 December, Jim Landles, who is ‘Mr Speed Cameras’ at Transport for London, told us that in 15% of cases cameras could be put in where there has been no history of casualties. Were you not misleading the public with that advertising campaign?

The Mayor: I am sure we were not.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): Then how do you explain that contradiction?

The Mayor: I assume what we do is to look for where we anticipate problems as well.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): Well that is not quite what the advertising campaign said. However, when he came to see us your speed camera man also told us that he thought the decision to paint the speed cameras yellow and make them visible was, in his words, ‘pandering to the

15 motoring lobbies’. Do you agree with that?

The Mayor: I can see no earthly reason why we should spend public money painting speed cameras yellow.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): Yet, surely, if your advertising campaign is correct, the aim of speed cameras is to slow people down at accident black-spots where they need to be visible. What is the point of hiding them and how is that consistent with the aim of your campaign stated in the advertising?

The Mayor: They are not hidden; they are pretty obvious. Going back and painting existing speed cameras yellow just did not seem to me to be the best use of public money. However, that was the Government’s decision. I think they were coming under a lot of pressure from the motoring lobby at the time, and there was a real sort of drive to say we should not have any more speed cameras. The truth is speed cameras save lives. My broad view, as I have said before, would be to do away with all the chicanes and the speed humps and everything else in exchange for simply having a complete camera network that enforces the law and those people breaking it and not inconvenience those people that abide by it.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): There is a philosophy here which I am trying to get to because I want to know your opinion on why these cameras are there. Either they are noticeable at accident spots so as to reduce the number of casualties, or you have them concealed all around the road system to reduce speed generally everywhere. Which of those approaches do you think is appropriate?

The Mayor: But it is not a question of concealed; they are quite obvious. People who regularly use an area rapidly become aware of them. So I do not think you hide them, but I do not see any point in painting them a garish yellow either. Bloody great deformed daffodils as a result of genetic engineering.

958 / 2003 - Tackling the State of Our Railways Lynne Featherstone What actions has the Mayor taken to try and bring together Network Rail and the train operating companies that serve London suburban routes to tackle the disgraceful state of the tracks, stations and environs of the rail network

The Mayor: [Indicating papers] This is the answer to your question. Do you really wish me to read it all out?

Sally Hamwee (Chair): No. We would like the short version.

16 The Mayor: As with the question about how many new bus routes we have laid on, there is a large amount we are doing in terms of joint studies, trying to set targets, cooperating with the SRA and the train operating companies. We get along better with the Strategic Rail Authority than the train operating companies, who seem to approach every problem with a hand out. However, these are overwhelmingly studies and voluntary cooperation, because I do not have the powers I would like to have to actually make the dramatic changes that you need to make. Because you are dealing with private companies that own the system now.

We are in active discussion with the companies, Network Rail as it now is and the SRA, on London’s need for national rail. The directions and guidance I have given to the SRA is that they must seek to improve the state of the network and contribute to a more attractive urban environment. However, primarily, unless a large amount of money is put into this we are not going to see the dramatic improvements that I think Londoners have a right to expect.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): You do have powers under the GLA Act to also issue instructions both on the services, and the state of the railways in London. How many instructions have you issued?

The Mayor: We have not issued any instructions because you can issue an instruction but if it requires expenditure you have to also give the expenditure. We have this pilot we are doing with four lines in London with starting to upgrade. I think the cost of that was a million or something like – half a million or whatever. When we looked at a London-wide approach to that I think we were talking about £40 million minimum. To bring the network of overland train services up to tube standard you are most probably talking more like getting up to £100 million. To bring the ticketing regime down into the tube standard you are most probably talking not much less than that.

Effectively, the rail operating companies and ticketing policies have become a stealth tax in this city. People that are dependent on the overland trains in South London and East London are surreptitiously taxed in a way they would not be if they had the ability to use the tube system.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): But what you are saying is through the non-exercise of those powers there have not been any extra trains, particularly for the long-haul journeys, or any extra stock for commuter London. Are you testing out how far your powers extend? For example, have you actually asked the SRA’s opinion on whether an instruction of yours would have an adverse effect on London? Because if he agrees with you there is not a problem.

The Mayor: Well, no, there is a problem with financing. I think I do need to read out the guidance we have given.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): I have got the Act here.

The Mayor: I better run through what we have done. Directions and guidance

17 was issued to the Strategic Rail Authority in January 2003 regarding provision of rail services in London.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): It is really a question –

The Mayor: You have asked the question. You have suggested I am not doing enough; I am now going to say what I am doing. Sorry. If you do not want the answer do not ask the question. The London Rail Partnership Agreement was signed by Bob Kiley and Richard Bowker in December 2002. This sets out a robust framework within which TfL and the SRA undertake to work together to develop commuter services and joint cooperation on matters affecting rail freight services in Greater London.

A joint TfL/SRA company, Crossrail, has been established to progress the Crossrail projects. The London Programme Office, TfL, SRA and Network Rail have established a London programme of infrastructure improvement schemes and identified priorities and interactions within it. The East London Line Extension is being progressed. The business case was submitted to Government in September 2002; we are awaiting their decision. The South London Metro ‘Turn Up and Go’ metro service has been agreed with four pilot groups starting in September 2003. Metro initiatives are to be expanded across the network (see Proposal E4PR7). Details of franchising are given in Proposal E4PR5.

Directions and guidance that was issued in 2003 includes the London Rail Partnership Agreement establishing a robust framework for TfL/SRA working together (see Proposal E4PR1 for further details). Progress has been made through the London Rail Partnership Agreement and day-to-day workings of the SRA. Analysis is continuing –

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Ken, please could I just –

The Mayor: I have been asked to answer the question and I am answering it.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): From the Chair I am going to make a suggestion that since so many of these refer to other documents and so on, the question will be very helpfully answered by publishing it in the Minutes. I have a lot of people who want to talk to you about something that I am sure you feel strongly about.

The Mayor: I have only given you 20% of the answer. Well perhaps we should have a vote on whether you want the whole answer or not.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Sadly we do not quite chair it as a cooperative. I am also reluctant to lose other questions which are later on the agenda.

The Mayor: Well you were very happy when I answered the bus one when it was asked by the Tories. Now you do not want one when it is asked by the Liberal Democrats. That is not fair is it?

18 Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): Basically, I just feel that you do not want to give a direct answer to the non-addition of extra trains or staffing in London. I give way to my colleague.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): Ken, how often do you actually travel on the South London overground suburban rail? And if you ever do, and I am sure you do, you must notice the appalling state of the track-side, the graffiti, the litter and so on, which frankly makes a mockery of the Capital Standards and is an appalling advertisement to visitors to London travelling from Gatwick for instance. What pressure can you put on the rail authorities to actually tidy up the track-side, clear up the graffiti and to improve the appearance of their stations?

The Mayor: Literally only that: pressure. By saying this should be done, this should be dealt with. The real problem we have here is that you have the privatisation of the rail system. Now, a decade on, we see the consequences of it. My view is clear: the rail system should be brought back into public ownership, operated as one system. I think that should be the policy for the Mayor and the Assembly.

Until it is, we are seeing a huge diversion of the resources going into rail into private profit. They are creaming off very comfortable incomes. Yet we are seeing no improvement in service or the quality of the general environment around stations. When I travel not just in South London but to East London stations, as you are going out of Liverpool Street up through Hackney they are squalid, dirty, unsafe; you feel vulnerable and you wait half an hour for a train. I think it is an absolute disgrace. Until either Government brings them back into public ownership or forces them to invest in improving the quality of their service, the option for us is whether we would increase the precept by £3 or £4 a week for a Band D to actually bring it up to scratch. You cannot do it.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): I agree with you about the desirability of bringing it back into public ownership, but it is not going to happen under this Government or probably any future Government. I accept that sadly you have no power in this respect, but the Mayor of London should have very considerable influence.

You told us at considerable length that you work with the SRA and the other rail authorities. Can you and do you use your considerable influence as Mayor of London to put pressure on the rail authorities quite literally to clean up their act, which is a disgrace to London, to Londoners and to the visitors to London that we all want to attract? Will you use your influence? Do you use your influence?

The Mayor: We have had countless meetings with the Chair of the SRA, both Richard Bowker and his predecessor. I have to say the relationship with the SRA is quite positive. They are constrained financially. Where we have real problems is in dealing with the train operating companies. As you know, for some time we tried to persuade them to come into the school trips function. After months of negotiation it looks like we have persuaded them to come into

19 the scheme at a third off for student travel cards. However, it takes months if not years to get anywhere and they expect to be paid for everything. With a wider range of tax base I would do that, but restricted to a tax base which is effectively just a precept we cannot do that.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): You have just told us that they have apparently agreed to come into the school travel arrangements. Can you tell us a bit more about that?

The Mayor: We have almost secured it.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): So you have not actually secured it.

The Mayor: We think we are very close. We hope to be able to make some statement for coming into operation in September.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): Can I ask you about the costs?

The Mayor: That’s what we are still haggling about. We could not even persuade them to keep the stations open in order to put on a New Year’s Eve event. We were told by the train operating companies that if we proceeded to have a fireworks’ display in Central London on New Year’s Eve they would shut all lines from Beckenham Junction into Waterloo; that is the attitude of the train operating companies.

Mike Tuffrey (Assembly Member): Can I invite you to reconsider withdrawing and re-stating the answer you gave to my colleague, Lynne Featherstone, that you would not issue an instruction under the Act because it might cost money. You have never been shy of spending money. You do not refuse to improve the buses because it will cost money. You do not refuse to improve the roads because it will cost money. Why should you discriminate against users of the overground? Why do you refuse to use your powers on the grounds that it will cost money to sort the problems out? Of course it will, but surely the overground people should get a decent service and you should be using your powers to ensure that happens.

The Mayor: The scale of the cost between what we can get from buses, which are relatively cheap, and what we can get from the overland and trains is very great. However, aware of your commitment to this, I will bring forward proposals in my next budget, costed, and present them to you. If you are prepared to vote for the precept increase we will be able to do it. As you voted to reduce my precept this year and last year, I have my doubts about this.

Mike Tuffrey (Assembly Member): No, my supplementary is going to be why had you not come to the Assembly with a package of measures for the overland as you did with the roads and buses and so forth to allow us to do that. So I welcome that. And provided we can have a genuine dialogue we can see if we can redress the balance for the overground users.

20 The Mayor: It is on its way.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): I think the residents in my constituency of Bexley and Bromley will think that they have waited rather a long time for these things to be on their way. Because since they are wholly dependent upon the overground for their significant transport services, they are concerned that it took two and half years before the directions and guidance were issued, and that any significant proposals are going to be right the way through the first term of the Mayoralty.

Can you understand from that there is a very strong perception that you have very little interest in the commuters coming in from Outer London? What steps are you taking to try and remedy that on two specific issues which would help constituents of mine?

Firstly, to put pressure on the SRA and the Department of Transport to ensure that commuter services are run on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which relieve pressure on the North Kent line through Bexley and Bromley. Secondly, what steps are you taking to deal with the SRA to see if you can effect the creation of an additional through-platform at London Bridge Station now that the rebuilding with Thameslink 2000 is likely to be permanently on hold? A simple device which could be done with the adaptation of one existing platform which would give significant capacity increase on trains from North Kent, Bexley and Bromley.

The Mayor: We took time to actually get an agreement with the SRA about instructions and guidance on the assumption that merely to issue instructions and guidance that they were unhappy with would get us nowhere; they would simply turn around and say where is the money – you have not got the money, we are not interested.

We have had a positive working relationship which has meant the SRA and ourselves being able to go jointly to Government on the issue of the East London Line and on the issue of Crossrail. We have got the agreement with the SRA on the four pilot upgrading schemes we are working on in South London.

On the two projects you raised, we are happy to see those. Given the failure of the London Bridge scheme and Thameslink 2000, the rail group inside TfL are preparing a slimmed down achievable replacement of Thameslink 2000 integrated with the development of the London Bridge Tower. Until we get the decision on the planning inquiry, which is several months away, we do not know where we are with the London Bridge Tower and the impact that will have on the redevelopment thing. So wait for that. However, there will be an alternative programme for improvements around Thameslink 2000 relatively soon.

Bob Neill (Assembly Member): Can I hope then for a swift reply to the letters that I wrote asking for your support in the representations I made in the Minutes to the SRA on those two points?

21

The Mayor: We will look to see where the reply to your letters has gone.

Valerie Shawcross (Assembly Member): We have 324 overground Stations in London and only 42 of them have ‘secure station’ status. Three of them are in my patch: London Bridge, Waterloo and Waterloo East. In fact, Ken, I have spent the last year meeting the rail operators, visiting the stations, collecting data, talking to Network Rail and British Transport Police. I have to say that the rail department you created within Transport for London has been hugely useful in all of that process. I think they are an important organisation to do with partnership working. The South London Metro is one of the first fruits of that.

One of the second fruits of that that I think we would like to see is that we have an opportunity now that the East London Line Extension is coming. The line that goes across to Clapham, as I have boxed Redmond [O’Neill, Policy Director]about the ears on this one, is not planned to stop at Lambeth at the moment. There is an opportunity to create a stop at Brixton. I do not know what the opposite to a beacon is, but if there is an ‘anti-beacon’ station in South London it is probably Brixton Overground. It is very inaccessible; it is a magnet for crime. I think it would be an important way of creating a good front doorstep for regenerating Brixton if we could really do a big fix on that station.

I heard you say you were going to come to Brixton. I am really pleased to hear that. Will you consider looking at funding an upgrade to Brixton Overground Station on a partnership basis? Will you think about it and make sure that the East London Line does actually stop in Lambeth? It would be a disaster if it did not.

The Mayor: Our thinking all the time up until very recently was on the assumption that the East London Line was going to Wimbledon, West Croydon and Crystal Palace, with termination at Wimbledon, the substitution of the line going to Clapham Junction. I do think we need to look seriously at the potential.

However, it certainly does seem to me that given the deprivation of the area around Brixton and the interchange capacity with the Underground and the number of bus routes that stop there, it would be madness not to take the opportunity to have a stop at Brixton. Therefore, when we come down we will looking at it from the viewpoint of how we can do it, rather than do I need to be persuaded to do it.

John Biggs (Assembly Member): I think Labour members do share some of that frustration at the delay in issuing advice and guidance, although we would recognise it was not entirely in your control as the national rail industry is now emerging from its five or six-year nervous breakdown.

While I would be fascinated to see your proposals for an increase in the precept next year, do you accept the principle that a Mayor of London should only really be spending money on things that the SRA will not spend it on?

22 Obviously, that may mean delays, but we do not want to spend taxpayers’ money where there is a duty on the national rail network to spend that money.

The second part of the question is a sort of shopping-list question if you like, and it is in Len’s name, 1039 on the agenda. When do you propose to introduce Metro-type services on the Hayes to London via Lewisham service?

The Mayor: I will have to come back to Len on that one. However, I think you touched the nub of this. When the rail services were privatised we were presented the transformation of the rail system; the end of subsidy, dynamism of the public sector, lifting this to a new plane of excellence. As you say, we now have a nervous breakdown effectively, with things just emerging.

Should we now say, having put hundreds of millions of pounds of national public subsidy into the train operating companies, them having failed to do anything to improve services, that we now have a further burden dumped on London’s council tax payers to pay for what should have been paid for through the train operating companies management of the system over the last 10 years? I am not certain that is right.

I also have the fear that if it looked as though the Assembly was prepared to agree the sort of precept increase necessary to achieve what we want, they would simply cut back funding in other parts of the system. That is the danger in all of this: stepping in and putting council tax payers’ money in to fill the gaps that have appeared, they will just make more gaps.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): Given the state of the railways which we all have strong views about, have you taken a view on the Government’s proposal to remove the cap on commuter fares and allow prices to rise by up to 10% in London? What representations have you made?

The Mayor: I said earlier, and I say it when I meet Ministers, who do not like the use of the term, that the rail fares have become a stealth tax, but they have. That is the reality of it. I am opposed to it. I am looking at ways in which we could bring the overland train fares in London down to the tariff set by the Underground, which already has the highest underground fares in the world. Our overland services are above that and it does seem to be completely wrong.

In those areas where you have a choice between a tube line and a rail line the fares are lower. Where you do not have a rival tube line, the fares are 10% or 20% higher. That is straightforward blackmail because people have nowhere else to go. We are currently negotiating with the train operating companies to see whether they would consider coming into a common underground tariff. I am not optimistic of achieving it and it will cost tens of millions of Pounds to do it.

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member): There has been an idea floating around for some time that we should create a model station. We should pick a station that is fairly decrepit at the moment and make it into something that is totally

23 user-friendly, and it would be an example for every other station in London, with disabled access, security, and comfort for people waiting. Brixton is probably somewhere that could use it. I was thinking Peckham Rye might be a good spot. Is that an idea that resonates with you? Is it something you think might be worth it?

The Mayor: We can do it. The question is do you have one excellent station everyone would point to, but that does not mean the train operating companies will put forward proposals to upgrade the others. There are some areas where given the positive planning framework that is set by the London Plan, I suspect there are quite a few stations in London where imaginative development of new housing and new employment opportunities around a station could upgrade them. There are others where it is never going to happen. I do think that we should actually be expecting from the train operating companies and the successor to Railtrack a more positive and outgoing approach to developing their landholdings around the stations to pay for this.

908 / 2003 - Rat-running in Wallace Crescent Andrew Pelling In the context of the TfL proposals for improving the environment in Carshalton, there is a problem that will arise if a No Left Turn is provided out of Pound Street into Beynon Road in that traffic will then seek to take a short cut from Pound Street to Beynon Road through Wallace Crescent, thus making the life of residents in Wallace Crescent a misery. Rat-running through this road is already an established problem. Would it be possible for TfL to make Wallace Crescent a cul-de-sac by blocking off its northern end at the junction with Pound Street in order to stop this potential rat-running?

The Mayor: As a consequence of the recent public consultation on possible improvements for the A232 through Carshalton, TfL has put on hold the apparently unpopular proposal to ban turning movements at Windsor Castle junction while other options to improve pedestrian facilities are investigated. Making Wallace Crescent a cul-de-sac is a consideration, but only in liaison with Sutton Council and the Highway Authority for that road. Such a proposal, however, cannot be considered in isolation; the Council will need to investigate the wider implications for such a move on other local roads. TfL will continue its consultation with Sutton Council officers on this matter.

Andrew Pelling (Assembly Member): Just one supplementary. I am very pleased to hear that TfL –

The Mayor: We thought you would be.

Andrew Pelling (Assembly Member): And I do hope that when any further consideration is being placed that the issues in Wallace Crescent are given close consideration because there is a great deal of rat-running already taking place under the current arrangements and indeed residents’ cars get damaged as a result. I do hope that will also remain on the agenda.

24

The Mayor: Can I say that as with other similar local constituency problems, if between yourself, Sutton Council and the TfL we do not get a resolution of this, I will be happy to oversee a joint meeting of all those bodies to try to resolve it. However, hopefully, it can be resolved locally rather than coming up to my office.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): Can I start by thanking my GLA Member for his support on this local issue. Indeed, the whole Tory group for making it their top priority this morning, in marked contrast I must say to their local representatives.

Ken, are you aware that once again the TfL consultation process has been to say at best, deeply flawed. The exhibitions were set up with virtually no notice and with no advertisement in the local press, although it is actually an issue of concern for far wider than just the immediate areas because it is a very important through-road. The leaflet that was distributed had no prior consultation about its content, which many thought was misleading at best, or about the distribution area. Can I on behalf of the local council here welcome your interest, your offer to be involved to be involved should it be necessary as a last resort. However, I think all members would agree with me, so I urge yet again that TfL should please greatly improve their consultation processes of which this is a particularly bad example.

The Mayor: You will be glad to know that when Bob Kiley and myself appeared before John Biggs at the Transport Committee –

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): Was he there on his own?

The Mayor: I think after the transition, or was it – I cannot remember.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): No, I just wondered you appeared only before John Biggs or whether there was anyone else there.

The Mayor: Oh no, before the Transport Committee. I think it was the first meeting after the transition from Lynne to John. Bob told the Committee his thinking was, given the problems we have had, that consultation with the public should be taken out of the hands of TfL officials promoting the project, who were too committed. And that we should have a proper dedicated unit for public consultation, who would not have the same degree of personal commitment to each scheme and therefore often think it has to be bludgeoned past local opposition who would take a more neutral approach. We are definitely going down that direction.

964 / 2003 - Paying for London Olympics Bid Mike Tuffrey What discussions have taken place with the business community about

25 covering the cost of a London Olympic Bid, as is the case in New York? Do you plan to consult London council taxpayers before asking them to contribute to bidding for and hosting the games in 2012?

The Mayor: Tessa Jowell’s announcment on 15 May made clear that the cost will be met by Government, the LDA and business. The Chairman of the London Business Board representing the CBI, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry in London wrote to me last week confirming that London business is right behind the bid and stands ready to provide facilities and other support.

London council tax payers will not be asked to contribute towards the bidding costs. The proposed Olympic tax precept of 38 pence a week for the average London household will not start until 2006/7. Therefore, all the work on the bid will come from Government and a lot from business. I already anticipate that the office costs of the bid company will be met by the private sector making good quality accommodation available in a central site.

Mike Tuffrey (Assembly Member): Does the letter actually spell out in hard terms what they are going to contribute? Can you tell us what share of the bid costs are likely to be met by the private sector?

The Mayor: No, it is not that specific or detailed. I will be meeting with the Business Board and following up a meeting I had earlier with Digby Jones of the CBI about what the business community put in now. I suspect we are looking more at support in kind rather than straightforward cash, though I guess some cash.

Mike Tuffrey (Assembly Member): I feared as much. Can I urge you to put them on the spot because all the projections put forward about the cost-benefit analysis on the Games as a whole show that the costs fall to the public sector, and if the Games go into profit the gains fall to the private sector, and yet up to now they have not been fingered to contribute anything towards the costs. So could you put them on the spot in relation to the bid itself?

Would you also put them on the spot in relation to going back to Central Government to look at changes, for example to the business rating system that would allow London’s business community to step up to the mark in the same way that Londoners are being asked to?

The Mayor: I agree with all that with one caveat: there is also the cost of Crossrail. My broad view is that we expect a major contribution from business to this broad area of Gateway, Olympics and Crossrail. It might very well be that it will be easier to persuade the business community to come up with say something like the supplementary business rate for a long-term commitment to Crossrail, which has much wider benefits across the whole of London than specifically for the Olympics. However, it is my intention to sting them for one or the other over the next year or so.

26

Mike Tuffrey (Assembly Member): Would you agree that they are more likely to come to the table and have serious discussions with you if they thought Government was serious about changing the law of the land to allow some of the development gains that come out of these big infrastructure projects to be captured? Would you agree that the discussions or the noises coming out of the Government so far in terms of legislative change fall short of what we actually need to get some of this private profit captured to fund these development issues, whether it is the Olympics or Crossrail?

The Mayor: Since this idea was first floated by Bob Kiley at TfL and taken up with enthusiasm by John Spellar, the Transport Minister, it has had a good hearing and the Treasury is looking at it in detail.

I still make the case to Ministers that the business rate should come back to the control of Local Authorities and that would be the best and fairest way. If as well as setting a council tax precept the GLA set a business rate precept, and that could be clearly targeted to things like this, I think there would be a lot more support in the business community of seeing it going into a major infrastructure project like Crossrail. I am certain one of these is going to come.

Meg Hillier (Assembly Member): If I could just pick up on the legacy issues again if you are going to be talking to the CBI and business. I am sure people in some of the other agencies are having some of these discussions about local interest, but in terms of the facilities that will be built and either run or adapted after the event, I would be glad if you could be raising very firmly at this stage the input that business needs to make in that. If we rely solely on a public sector regeneration scheme it may not be sustainable in the long term. I would be grateful if you could keep that in mind.

The Mayor: I agree.

Eric Ollerenshaw (Assembly Member): Given the importance of the London Development Agency in all this, and all the comings and goings of officers etcetera, including the change in Chairmanship at the LDA, is it you re-shaping the LDA to perform its new function of drawing up the Masterplan for the Olympics and changing where it spends its money? Or is that your view that the LDA would not be competent to do that without all these changes?

The Mayor: I took the view that clearly with the major decisions by Government about the Thames Gateway and the role the LDA would play in that, and my certainty that we would get Government committed to the Olympic bid which I have now had for several months, that you needed to change both personnel and structures at the LDA so that they are up for delivering this. That was the genesis of the changes.

The outgoing Chair had broadly delivered the initial agenda that I set for the first four years a bit ahead of time. It seemed to me we should put in place a

27 leadership who would carry us certainly beyond the bid period in July 2005. So, rather than wait until the end of this Mayoral term to make changes, I thought I would put these changes in place now.

1021 / 2003 - Police Numbers Toby Harris How many police officers and PCSOs would be lost in each borough command if there were a 20% across the board cut in numbers?

The Mayor: I have a long list again. I have here the figures for each Borough about the impact of a 20% cut in funding. I am happy to give them for all Boroughs if you want me to, but I can give you the headline figures. It would mean a reduction in policing in the Boroughs from 18,499 to 14,799. It would involve a reduction in Police Community Support Officers in the Boroughs from 960 to 768. If one takes an example such as Westminster, they would go down from 217 Police Community Support Officers to 174 and their police commitment of 1,541 would be reduced to 1,233.

Taking a random suburban Borough, Harrow would see a loss of 4 Police Community Support Officers, taking them from 19 down to 15. However, its current police establishment of 322 would be reduced to 258.

Toby Harris (Assembly Member): Given that the Met is it now at its highest ever strength and is still growing, and last year’s crime figures have demonstrated that this has already had an effect, what do you think the consequences are of Iain Duncan Smith’s proposal to slash police numbers by this sort of number?

The Mayor: I would be more worried about if I thought there was a chance of Iain Duncan Smith becoming Prime Minister. However, it does seem to me to be quite bizarre. It seems like about a year ago that I saw Michael Howard on TV saying we will continue the Government’s public spending priorities. Now there seems to have been a complete shift. A slightly different emphasis coming at different times, but clearly between Oliver Letwin and Duncan Smith we are talking about substantial cuts in public spending. I think this just takes us back to a totally sterile debate: the idea that somehow you can improve public services and not pay for them.

What we have demonstrated at this Authority over the last three years is a dramatic improvement in police numbers; we have restored a decade of cuts in police numbers in three years. However, only because we were prepared say honestly to the council tax payer: the Government’s paying some, we also have to pay some. Even more in terms of bus services. We have restored 40 years of cuts in the network in three years, but we had to increase the precept to do it. We are now running as many bus miles in London as 1963 at the time the Beatles had their first hit. We are carrying as many bus passengers as in 1967.

28 This transformation of policing, which I think will follow very much as dramatically as the transformation of the bus improvements, has had to be paid for. The nonsense that is now floating up from the Tory Party once again that you can improve public services and cut taxes is as completely and utterly dishonest as it was the first time around.

Toby Harris (Assembly Member): You have talked about the impact in terms of what would happen on the Boroughs. What are your views on what the impact would be on London’s resilience and the capacity of its emergency services to cope with the pressures they might be under in the future in the event of Iain Duncan Smith, by some mischance, having the opportunity to implement an across-the-board cut of 20%?

The Mayor: Quite clearly, members have seen, as we all have, the very good success that police intelligence has had at making arrests of small groups of individuals who sought or were planning to try and bring terrorist violence to the streets of London. I think there have been five or six very successful operations. Perhaps we would have been able to do that with a smaller policing establishment. However, I suspect that part of the success is that just in time police numbers began to turn round just as it was necessary to start to put extra resources onto intelligence work as it was into street-policing around key targets. We would be naive to assume that the people who are letting off bombs in Morocco or in Israel would not also like to do the same thing here.

Toby Harris (Assembly Member): Given that the Conservative Party is united around the leadership they are given by Iain Duncan Smith, do you think that the effects on Londoners’ lives of the Tory Party’s ambition to cut public spending, including that of emergency services by 20%, is something that Conservative members of this Assembly are going to be happy to live with over the next year?

The Mayor: I do not think Conservative members of the Assembly are going to be happy with the next year at all. I think you will find there is a problem in terms of not just terrorism, but with the increase in police numbers we are beginning to see two things. One, a very welcome turndown in key crime figures, which I am optimistic will continue downwards as police numbers improve. Also, however, for the first time, members of the public in polling and in focus groups have started to notice an increase in police presence, and Police Community Support Officers as well, on the streets. That is vital in giving people the confidence to come out and enjoy their own city.

Therefore, I think to snuff out this programme of reconstruction of policing, which clearly the Tory proposals would involve, would be a devastating set-back for the comfort, security and safety of Londoners.

Tony Arbour (Assembly Member): You must know, as Toby knows, that of course there has been no such proposal made by any Tory politician to reduce police numbers by 20%. It is quite clear how the next 12 months are going to go so far as Toby Harris is concerned. The truth of the matter, is it not a fact that the only truthful statements, made by Tories, about police

29 numbers have been made by members who sit here, who year after year have proposed increases in police numbers only to see them voted down by the Labour group?

Is it not also a fact that you have just increased the police precept in excess of 50% and in some Boroughs that is not going to deliver a single additional police officer? The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames will have to pay an additional £4 million in police precept. The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames is having to pay an extra £3 million in police precept. The number of additional police officers allocated to those Boroughs is nil.

Is this not an absolute disgrace and a testament to the profligacy of Lord Harris and the Labour group on the MPA? Why has it taken three years for this report to be published which points at an evident truth that the simplest way to have a more efficient police force is to get rid of double-manning when police are called out to trivial events?

The Mayor: Can I point out that a 20% cut in spending across the board would mean Kingston Upon Thames losing 53 officers and Richmond Upon Thames 55. Now I agree that your Party’s policy is not wholly clear. Turning to The Daily Telegraph (as I often do) there is an interview with Iain Duncan Smith. He said that the Party’s spending review was trying to identify savings of up to 20% in areas where Government spending was being wasted. And 20% savings across the board in Government spending where that spending is not delivering extra services. This is exactly what we were told in 1979, that you could find all these savings, it would not cut services. Well look what happened to housing construction. Look what happened to fares. Look what happened to the railways, to the buses. No-one in their right mind would say public services were improved during the 18 years that Lady Thatcher and John Major presided over them.

Graham Tope (Assembly Member): I must say we have had a totally hypothetical discussion so far because nobody believes that there is the remotest chance of Iain Duncan Smith ever becoming Prime Minister.

The only interesting thing that has come out of this is the statement from the Conservative leader here that his Party is as united as Mr Blair and Mr Brown, and we take note of that.

Can I ask the Mayor given the number of increases he repeatedly says there have been in police and now PCSO’s on the street, why does he think it is that public satisfaction with foot patrols has actually gone down not up over the last year?

The Mayor: In the tracking poll that we do annually, for which we will not get the next batch of figures until the end of this year, when people in London were asked about what they felt about being safe on the streets, at the end of 2001 55% felt unsafe on the streets. By the end of 2002 that had gone down to 50%. A very small change, but just coming at the time when the extra policing numbers were first beginning to come through. I am optimistic that

30 that figure will be dramatically improved by the end of this year.

There are many different ways of cutting this cake. Certainly, from what I am picking up, people are actually saying to me that they have seen an increased police presence in some areas. It will take a long time for that to roll out. We are looking at a third of the wards in London each year for three years now getting these home-based, ward-based units. That would have a dramatic impact right the way across the system, I have no doubt about it.

915 / 2003 - Campaign for a Living Wage Darren Johnson Do you support the campaign for a living wage? What will you do to ensure low-paid workers in London get a fair deal?

The Mayor: I believe all Londoners should be paid a wage which covers the high costs of living in the capital. I have given my support to Trade Union campaigns to increase London weighting to cover these high costs. I have also introduced the ‘fair employment’ clause within core GLA’s procurement procedures.

Darren Johnson (Assembly Member): Have you met with representatives from the communities associations, TELCO, and their campaign for a living wage, which is something that has taken off in a number of American cities with public sector workers and others? Will you be signing the GLA up to the Campaign for a Living Wage and urging London Boroughs to do the same?

The Mayor: I have met with TELCO twice. The first time in a large prayer session, where there is also discussion of these things, and then subsequently in a meeting at Romney House over a year ago where we looked at their more recent campaigns. I think I did commit myself to them. If they send me something they want me to sign, once I have had a look at it I am sure I will be able to sign it.

I think the best way forward is that for those workers in the bottom two thirds of earnings in London, London weighting should broadly reflect the consensus that emerged here in the GLA around the report, which I think was Chaired by Meg, of broadly about £4,000 a year.

Eric Ollerenshaw (Assembly Member): There was no consensus.

The Mayor: I live in hope

Mike Tuffrey (Assembly Member): Thinking about contracts that are let through the core GLA, can you describe to us the procurement procedures that we have to ensure that employees of contractors are paid a living wage? Can you tell us what number of contracts have been declined on the grounds of the contractor not being able to give us the assurances the procurement policies should require, if indeed they do?

31 The Mayor: I will try to get that information for you. As I say, I am not altogether happy with our procurement process because I think we are under-resourced in that area, which is why I asked the Assembly to appoint two new staff to deal with procurement. Unfortunately, BMAC declined that request, but we are doing the best we can with the limited resources we have. However, if you could see your way to giving me the extra staff, I am sure –

Sally Hamwee (Chair): It is on the agenda for 4 June.

Meg Hillier (Assembly Member): Very interesting. Perhaps with some of the problems the Mayor has experienced with procurement, I think it is a very poor excuse to say you have not got the staff; certainly there are plenty of people there already.

I just wanted to pick up on a point that the Mayor made. The Assembly has not come up with a view that it supports a £4,000 flat-rate policy. It endorsed the view of the independent panel and that work is continuing, and that did not come out with a flat-rate £4,000.

I think it is worth highlighting and reminding Darren that the Local Government Pay Commission is currently work in progress. The Government has abolished two-tier working which goes a long way to improving the pay of the lower paid. The minimum wage was introduced by a Labour Government and of course the London Assembly has done its work on London weighting. I think we should all be happy.

Ken, I ask you to endorse the view and comment on the fact that actually across London, across employers and trade unions, there is a broad recognition that there is an issue about pay in London. I hope that we can all work together to continue the fight to ensure London gets its fair share and that London workers are not discriminated against.

The Mayor: Not for the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with everything Meg has said.

999 / 2003 - Public Transport Provision in North Kensington Angie Bray I carried out a survey of residents in North Kensington and found that, of those who replied, 72% said they considered the level of public transport provision in the area to be insufficient. What plans have you to introduce a better level of provision in the area?

The Mayor: As has been noted previously, the North Kensington area is served by several high-frequency bus routes during the day and three night bus services. There have been a number of improvements to these services including increases in frequency during peak and off-peak periods, new low-floor double-deck buses on route 295, increasing capacity and improving accessibility, and enhanced supervision on three routes. There are no immediate plans for further alterations to these services.

32

The area is also bordered by the Hammersmith and City Line to the south. This would be subject to timetable improvements to improve reliability in September 2003 in addition to the ambience improvements involving cleaning of trains and updating automated announcements currently in progress and these are reaching completion.

TfL will be interested to see further details of the survey in terms of response rate, questions asked and issues raised, as London-wide analysis by TfL has not highlighted accessibility to the area as an issue.

Angie Bray (Assembly Member): I would be absolutely delighted to share the information with TfL. I have to say that I was very delighted by the response rate which was actually really rather high for a survey of this sort. However, as you will see from my question, I think the point is that you have outlined all these improvements that you say have been made and yet there is this very high percentage saying that they are not satisfied.

I think it is fair to say that almost anybody would say that they think things could be better than they are. However, the most striking part of the survey, which I will be happy to share with you, is that somewhere around 80% say that their problem with it is that it is so unreliable. When I actually went round and asked the people standing at some of the bus-stops and asked them in what sense they thought it was unreliable, they really felt the problem was they did not know whether a bus would come in 10 minutes or anything up to half an hour.

Again, what I think you will see from the survey is that many people say they would be more likely to use buses – and it is buses that are mainly used in the area – if they thought they could be more certain about the buses actually coming on a fixed pattern. However, they are obviously very unreliable. Interestingly perhaps, the most unreliable of all is the most long-established service of all, the No.7 bus. What do you think we can do to actually improve reliability?

The Mayor: On the No.7, we have increased from six to nine buses per hour during Monday to Saturday daytime. I have the figures for all the others. They are slightly up and improved. Overall, the time people wait for a bus in London has gone from six minutes last year to five minutes this year. One of the reasons, and most probably really the biggest reason, why I am considering extending the congestion charge zone westwards is the dramatic improvement in bus reliability that you then get. The biggest thing we have to tackle though before we could move the Zone westward is because you do not have the same degree of Tube penetration in that western zone. You would have to do much more extensive improvement in the bus network.

So, if we do proceed with the extension there would need to be substantial increase in bus services in that zone, before we could actually introduce congestion charging.

33 Angie Bray (Assembly Member): Thank you. So you would be working hard if I take it as read that you will be attempting to extend the congestion charge scheme were you to be re-elected will be working hard to improve the reliability to try and get it up to standards before you consider extending the scheme.

The Mayor: I have just agreed the question is to be asked of an extensive opinion poll within the Zone extension area and the periphery around. That will be available some time by the summer. It will particularly ask people what they think about the reliability of existing services and so on. So that will give us a good starting point. It is clearly emerging as much the best option to proceed with first rather than Heathrow.

Also the initial work that is being done has identified that it would actually be preferable that the barrier would not be the Westway but the Harrow Road, so much more of Kensington would come in.

Diana Johnson (Assembly Member): I wonder if I can follow up on the bus route issue, in particular the need for a north to south bus route. Because, as I understand it, there are many people who find it difficult travelling to the hospitals in the south and having to change in High Street Kensington. Are you taking any steps to look at that and introduce a new route?

The Mayor: We have looked at the possibility of a completely north-south route, but there would be reliability problems just because it goes through so many areas of congestion and there would not be many people doing the complete route from say North Kensington down to Chelsea. Although as I pointed out when the Leader of Kensington came to lobby me, it would make it easier for their servants to get to work in Chelsea, which would be the major group doing the long haul down.

We are hoping to lever out of Chelsfield as they go ahead with the White City development improvements into the bus service, because clearly that will have a dramatic impact on transport movements. One assumes there will be quite a lot of people wanting to make public transport accessibile to the new Chelsfield development at White City. So we should get what we can lever out of them for that. Sadly, of course, that planning permission was granted before my powers kicked in and is not as rigorous as would otherwise have been the case.

960 / 2003 - Thames Gateway Bridge Consultation Lynne Featherstone Will the Mayor assure the London Assembly that the public consultation to be carried out on the Thames Gateway Bridge will be a true consultation exercise, and that unlike previous such exercises carried out by Transport for London, nothing has been ruled out and nothing has been ruled in. Will you also commit to full disclosure of all the results of this consultation exercise?

The Mayor: The consultation started on 12 May and will run for three months. It should give everybody ample opportunity to express their views on a whole

34 range of questions from the principle of the scheme to the details. I will consider those views before deciding whether to proceed. After this, the bridge would be discussed in Parliament or at a Public Inquiry. Parliament or the Secretary of State for Transport would therefore make the final decision on whether or not to grant powers to build the bridge.

We are encouraging local people who will be affected to read the consultation booklet and attend one of our roadshows where they can watch a video about the bridge, talk to staff and seek further information. There is a free hotline for them to ring. They can make their views known by filling out the questionnaire in the consultation booklet; they can also do this online from our website. Over 460,000 leaflets will be delivered to local households in the affected Boroughs, supported by an extensive programme of adverts in local papers and posted on bus shelters and in Tube stations.

We will publish a report on the responses we have received to the consultation and provide feedback on what we have decided to do and why.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): Is that a report on, rather than the full disclosure of the results?

The Mayor: I can see no reason why Members of the Assembly who wish to look at all the responses to consultation shouldn’t do so. They can come in to a room at TfL and sit down and read through them. If it is anything like the exercise I undertook because by law I had to read all the responses to the various waves of congestion charging consultation, I would urge perhaps one of your staff might be better employed doing that.

However, at the end of the day it is clear: I will consider them all. There will be an extensive report. I might end up actually reading them all myself again, as I did with the congestion charge ones, and I will then decide whether to proceed. Having had that decision then you get the formal legal procedure either in Parliament or through a Highways Act consultation or a TWA or whatever.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): That was about an issue of principle of them being available to us should we wish to read them.

The Mayor: If you want to you are welcome.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): It would not be the first time that residents of London have had some difficulties with your Transport for London consultations. What reassurance do they absolutely have that it will be different this time to the Ealing tram? I know you have the consultation tool kit. I have not even managed to get hold of a copy of the consultation on the bridge.

The Mayor: If you just log on to the website that should be adequate. Or phone the hotline.

35 Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): Well I think we have tried that.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I believe that that has been tried but what you get on the website is not the full consultation document.

The Mayor: Well let us know what you want and we will make sure you can have it. However, if you recall the report that we had on the consultations on congestion charging, they were incredibly full, so full they became a bit turgid quite frankly.

I point to what has happened on west London. You will not yet know this formally but I have decided to defer the decision for a further three months to allow extra work to be done on traffic modelling so that by the time we take the decision we have all the traffic modelling and the impact on the local streets that we will need. So now we are most probably heading towards a TfL decision on the West London tram in January.

So whatever time it takes to do the proper consultation on the bridge, if it needs to slip in order to get that proper consultation we will do it.

Lynne Featherstone (Assembly Member): Okay that is good news because it means there is an open and accountable procedure.

Len Duvall (Assembly Member): Notwithstanding the outcome of any consultation, can the Mayor give us an undertaking that the full environmental impact assessment study will be undertaken before the final decision is taken on the bridge? Just in terms of earlier on, I was slightly concerned, and you may wish to correct me, it is not an individual that undertakes that environmental impact assessment it is the institution or the sponsoring department who have developed the issue. I just want to be clear whether that can be in your mind and your thinking.

The Mayor: I agree on that. Clearly, to proceed without having had the full environmental impact assessment would just open us to a legal challenge and drag it all to the European Courts. It will be done rigorously; it will be independent, and it will be fully publicly available.

Darren Johnson (Assembly Member): You know what our position is on the bridge, so I am not going to go on about that. However, after three years, are you any clearer than me what the Liberal Democrats’ position is on this bridge?

The Mayor: Is there an election in the offing I ask myself. Can I say that there is no doubt in my mind that I think the only two occasions on which Susan Kramer, as a Member of the TfL Board, voted against me were both on bridges. She voted against giving money to continue the completion of the Westminster Council-funded Hungerford Footbridge and then again voted quite firmly against proceeding with this bridge. So clearly the Liberals have a bridge phobia. I would warn people all over west London: Liberal councillors may demolish your bridge across the River Thames.

36

1022 / 2003 - Safety of Young Londoners Jennette Arnold What action has the Mayor initiated in light of the publications of the recent Children and Young People’s Strategy to improve security for young people at, and on their way to and from school?

The Mayor: I recently announced on 29 April that I am committing an additional £3,650,000 to Borough ‘Safe Routes to School’ projects across London over the next three years. This will mean an extra £500,000 in the current financial year on top of the £6 million I already announced last October. I will be announcing further funding later this later. Projects might include new Puffin crossings, introducing cycling routes in and around schools, developing school travel plans, introducing so-called ‘walking buses’ and putting in speed reduction measures.

TfL initiatives include all buses to be fitted with closed-circuit televisions by March 2005. A major school programme, ‘Bus Wise’, to educate young people in how to use bus services in a safer way. My new Transport Policing Initiative covers some of the busiest bus corridors used by young people. In addition, TfL staff are instructed that young people must be carried free of charge if they are unable to pay their fare. I have also asked TfL to produce a programme to provide facilities for cycle parking at schools so that all young people who wish to cycle can be confident their bicycles are secure.

So far as improving security at and around schools is concerned, the Metropolitan Police is deploying officers outside schools associated with anti-social behaviour or bullying.

Jennette Arnold (Assembly Member): It seems to us on the Labour side that this is one of the successes of TfL, and clearly we have pushed TfL towards this direction. However, I would urge you as Chair of TfL to ensure that this item stays high on the agenda. As you will recall, it took us about 18 months to actually get that work sorted about not having young people taken off buses if they could not pay. So we welcome the work to date. It seemed quite a natural progression, having dealt with the safety of young people on transport to now be looking at their most vulnerable places and that is at school and on their way to and from school.

Can you just make sure that TfL realises that the school day is no longer 8:30 until 4? It is a variable day in London so we would look to see some flexibility in the work they are planning. Can you give us the commitment that you, as Chair, will be requesting regular updates of this work?

The Mayor: I would have thought what we should have is a regular update coming to the relevant GLA Committee as well so that it is formally in the public domain, and then you are in a position to exert the pressure to keep that going.

37 I can also say that I met with Toby Harris on Monday to discuss where we are going in terms of the expansion of the police force and Police Community Support Officers. Although this is not a final firm commitment, both of us have the broad view that as this new policing level rolls out across London, as wards are identified for which are going to be first year, second year and third year in getting the extra police and the Community Support Officers, I think we both feel very strongly there needs to be local consultation about the order of roll out of wards. Both of us feel very strongly that each Borough should be part of the first wave as well as the second and third and we should be discussing well ahead of time with people where they wish to see this start first. Clearly, the question of safety around schools should be a major factor inputting into that debate.

Jennette Arnold (Assembly Member): Well, it is a day late, but can I ask that the next time that you meet with my friend here on the left and talk about these matters that you look at the issue of Special Constables, because they play a particularly key role here. However, the fact that they cannot travel freely on Transport for London is an issue that could be addressed, and I am sure that you will then be able to recruit more ‘Specials’ and then you could then have an extra resource around this area. It seems to me silly that a valuable resource there is hindered by the fact that they are not allowed to travel free on Transport for London.

The Mayor: Well that seems like an excellent idea, which I do not recall having had suggested before; if I have I have forgotten about it. I shall get Mark Watts to look at bringing that forward as a possibility. It does seem to be common sense. I think they might have to be in uniform or something like that, but it would be a very good idea.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): Mr Mayor, you will be pleased to know that young people in Wanstead in my part of London are feeling much safer now because of the local Police Commander’s decision to re-open Wanstead Police Station. Do you now regret your decision not to support this local campaign last year?

The Mayor: On my recent visit to the area journalists were going on about this – I had no recollection of this at all.

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): We have got it in the Minutes.

The Mayor: I am sure you have. I suspect I might have said that this is a matter for the MPA. Would you like to read out what I said and then I will comment on it?

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): You said: ‘I have been advised that the two 24-hour response stations at Ilford and Barkingside continue to be the most operationally efficient means of deploying police resources across the Borough.’

The Mayor: As I said to –

38

Roger Evans (Assembly Member): It was not correct. You were badly briefed by Lord Harris – not for the first time.

The Mayor: I was not briefed by Lord Harris at all. This was the response that came back from the MPA and I relayed it to you. I have to say I am not an expert on each police station in London. I may get there one day but I have a wee way to go yet.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): That concludes the questions, thank you very much.

39