AGENDA Meeting Budget Monitoring Sub -Committee Date Tuesday 19 July 2011 Time 3.30 pm Place Committee Room 4, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs- london/the-london-assembly/committees/budget-monitoring Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings. Members of the Committee John Biggs (Chairman) Gareth Bacon Richard Barnbrook Richard Tracey A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chairman of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. This meeting will be open to the public. There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. Mark Roberts, Executive Director of Secretariat Monday 11 July 2011 Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Matt Bailey, Committee Assistant; Telephone: 020 7983 4014; E-mail: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458.. For media enquiries please contact Lisa Moore, Tel: 020 7983 4228, email: [email protected] or Julie Wheldon, Tel: 020 7983 4228, email: [email protected] . If you have any questions about individual reports please contact the report author whose details are at the end of each report. There is limited underground parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis. Please contact Facilities Management (020 7983 4750) in advance if you require a parking space or further information.
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected] .
Certificate Number: FS 80233
Agenda Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee Tuesday 19 July 2011 1. Apologies for Absence and Chairman's Announcements To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chairman. 2. Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 2) The Sub -Committee is recommended to: (a) Note the list of memberships of functional bodies and London Borough Councils, as set out in the table at Item 2; (b) Note the gifts and hospitality received by Members, as set out on the Authority’s gifts and hospitality register; and (c) Declare any other personal or personal prejudicial interests in specific items listed on the agenda over and above those items listed in the table above and including any interests arising from gifts or hospitality received within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, which are not at the time of this meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality. 3. Minutes (Pages 3 - 34) The Sub -Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee held on 14 April 2011 to be signed by the Chairman as a correct record. The appendices to the minutes set out on pages 7 to 34 are attached for Members and officers only but are available from the following area of the GLA’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/meetings 4. Summary List of Actions (Pages 35 - 48) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Matt Bailey; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4014 The Sub-Committee is recommended to note the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee.
3
5. Quarter 4, 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Report (Pages 49 - 204) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Matt Bailey; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4014 The Sub-Committee is recommended to note the content of the report as background to putting questions to representatives from Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the Greater London Authority. The appendices to the report set out on pages 51 to 204 are attached for Members and officers only but are available from the following area of the GLA’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/meetings 6. 2011 -12 GLA Group Budget - Comparison with Mayor's Budget with Final Functional Body Approved Budget (Pages 205 - 224) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Martin Mitchell; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4145 The Sub-Committee is recommended to note the report. 7. Mayor's Decision Lists: 8 April to 29 June 2 011 (Pages 225 - 266) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Matt Bailey, [email protected] , 020 7983 4014 The Sub-Committee is recommended to discuss any issues arising in respect of the Mayor’s Decision Lists for the period 8 April to 29 June 2011 (previously made available as background papers to the relevant Mayor's Report to the Assembly), and decide whether to refer any issues to the Budget and Performance Committee for detailed consideration. 8. Payments of over £500 to suppliers: 1 April 2011 to 25 June 2011 (Pages 267 - 282) Report of the Executive Director of Resources Contact: David Gallie, [email protected] , 020 7983 4968 The Sub-Committee is recommended to note the report. 9. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Sub-Committee is scheduled for 7 September 2011 at 2.30pm in Committee Room 5. 4
10. Any Other Business the Chairman Considers Urgent
5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2
London Assembly Membership of Functional Bodies and London Borough Councils
Member (Personal) Interest Gareth Bacon Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Bexley Richard Barnbrook John Biggs Member, MPA Richard Tracey Member, LFEPA [Note: LB - London Borough; LDA – London Development Agency; LFEPA – London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; MPA – Metropolitan Police Authority.]
Recommendations: (i) That the list of memberships of functional bodies and London Borough Councils, as set out in the table above, be noted; (ii) That gifts and hospitality received by Members, as set out on the Authority’s gifts and hospitality register, be noted; and (iii) That all Members declare any other personal or personal prejudicial interests in specific items listed on the agenda over and above those items listed in the table above and including any interests arising from gifts or hospitality received within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, which are not at the time of this meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality. The above memberships of the GLA’s Functional Bodies and London Borough Councils are listed for the purposes of public transparency. However, Members should note that in accordance with the GLA’s Code of Conduct, they must declare any other personal interests (except interests arising from gifts and hospitality that appear on the gifts and hospitality register at the time of the meeting) they have in any item on the agenda or as they arise during the course of the meeting. Members must say to which item their interest relates. If they have a personal interest Members must also consider whether or not that interest is a prejudicial personal interest and take the necessary action. When considering whether or not they have a declarable interest, Members should consult paragraphs 8-12 of the Code. A personal interest is, generally, one that would affect a Member (either directly or through a connection with a relevant person or organisation) more than other people in London, in respect of the item of business under consideration at the meeting. If a member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would view a Member’s personal interest in the item under consideration as so substantial that it would appear likely to prejudice the Member’s judgment of the public interest, then the Member has a prejudicial personal interest . The Code of Conduct also specifically requires Members, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered. City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 1
The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting as a personal interest is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on-line database may be viewed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/gifts-and- hospitality-register . At Assembly meetings, under the declarations of interest agenda item, Members are then asked to note that gifts and hospitality received by Members are set out on the Authority's register. If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25, Members are required to disclose these at the meeting, either at agenda Item 2 or when the interest becomes apparent. It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether an interest arising from the receipt of a gift or hospitality is also a prejudicial personal interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality does give rise to a prejudicial interest the Member must withdraw from the room and not seek to improperly influence any relevant decision. Consequences: If a Member has a personal interest : they must declare the interest but can stay, speak and vote. If the Member has prejudicial personal interest : they declare the interest, cannot speak or vote on the item and must leave the room.
Page 2 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES Meeting: Budget Monitoring Sub - Committee Date: Thursday 14 April 2011 Time: 10.00 am Place: Committee Room 1, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the minutes may be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london- assembly/committees/budget-monitoring Present: John Biggs (Chairman) Gareth Bacon Richard Barnbrook Richard Tracey 1. Apologies for Absence and Chairman's Announcements (Item 1) 1.1 No apologies were received for absence. 2. Declarations of Interests (Item 2) 2.1 Resolved: (a) That the list of memberships of functional bodies and London borough councils, as set out in the table at Item 2, be noted as personal interests; and (b) That gifts and hospitality received by Members, as set out on the Authority’s gifts and hospitality register, be noted.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 3 Greater London Authority Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee Thursday 14 April 2011 3. Minutes (Item 3) 3.1 The Sub -Committee received the minutes of the meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub - Committee held on 9 February 2011. 3.2 Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee held on 9 February 2011 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 4. Summary List of Actions (Item 4) 4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat detailing the completed and outstanding actions from previous meetings of the Budget Monitoring Sub- Committee. 4.2 Resolved: That the completed and outstanding actions from previous meetings of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee be noted. 5. Quarter 3 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Report (Item 5) 5.1 The Sub -Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Resources as background to putting questions to the following invited guests from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA): • Sue Budden, Acting Director of Finance and Contractual Services, LFEPA; and • Gary Dobson, Director of Operational Policy and Training, LFEPA. 5.2 A record of the discussion is attached as Appendix 1 . 5.3 In the course of the discussion, Members asked for more detail on how LFEPA managed the transfer of risk when its services were contracted out, as in the case of AssetCo, and for a copy of the letter sent from the Fire Commissioner to LFEPA Members giving assurances on the access and availability of the fleet in the event of the collapse of AssetCo. 5.4 With regard to performance issues relating to the GLA, Members agreed that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee should write to the Assistant Director - Planning, for an update on the number of projects in the Planning team flagged as red or amber and the planned response. 5.5 In accordance with Standing Orders, it was decided that the second part of the discussion should be deferred pending the arrival of further invited witnesses, and, therefore, the 2 Page 4 Greater London Authority Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee Thursday 14 April 2011 Chairman decided to take items of business in an order different from that set out on the agenda for the meeting. 6. Mayor's Decision Lists: 13 January 2011 - 9 March 2011 (Item 6) 6.1 The Sub -Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat setting out the Mayor’s Decision Lists for the period 13 January to 9 March 2011. 6.2 During the course of the discussion, the Assistant Director of Finance undertook to supply the Sub-Committee with further information on the reasons why part 2 of the report on Mayoral Decision 765 was confidential under the Freedom of Information Act. It was agreed that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee should write to the Mayor to raise this issue more generally. 6.3 Resolved: (a) That the report be noted. (b) That the Chairman of the Sub-Committee write to the Mayor to raise the issue of the increasing number of instances where the reasons for confidential information on Mayoral Decision reports were not being sufficiently explained. 7. Payments of over £500 to suppliers: 9 January 2011 to 31 March 2011 (Item 7) 7.1 The Sub -Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Resources. 7.2 Resolved: That the report be noted. 8. Date of Next Meeting (Item 8) 8.1 The next scheduled meeting of the Committee was to be held on 19 July 2011 at 3.30pm, subject to it being re-established at the Budget and Performance Committee. 9. Quarter 3 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Report (Item 5 - continued ) 9.1 The Sub -Committee resumed Item 5 in order to discuss the quarterly monitoring information with the following invited guests:
3 Page 5 Greater London Authority Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee Thursday 14 April 2011 • Nick Rogers, Director of Finance Services, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS); • Det CH Supt Mick McNally, Territorial Policing, MPS; and • Bob Atkins, Treasurer, Metropolitan Police Authority. 9.2 A record of the discussion is attached as Appendix 2 . 9.3 Resolved: (a) That the GLA Group Monitoring information for Quarter 3 be noted; and (b) That the Chairman of the Sub-Committee write to the Assistant Director, Planning asking for an update on the number of projects in the Planning team that had been flagged as red or amber and the planned response. 10. Any Other Business the Chairman Considers Urgent (Item 10 ) 10.1 There were no items of urgent business. 11. Close of Meeting 10.1 The meeting finished at 1 1.24am. Chair man Date Contact Officer: Matt Bailey, Committee Assistant; Telephone: 020 7983 4014; E -mail: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458.
4 Page 6 Appendix 1 Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee – 14 April 2011 Item 5: Quarter 3, 2010-11 GLA Group Monitoring Report John Biggs (Chairman): I understand this is the first formal Committee meeting of the Assembly since the death of Sir Simon Milton was announced. I know the Assembly has made a number of statements and comments and I just wanted us to record our sadness and also our respect for the great work that Simon has done at the GLA. A lot of us have known him for many, many years as well. There may be ideological differences, of course, but he was a very solid and very experienced and very trustworthy public representative and I just wanted to put that on the record. We have two major items I think today. The first is we are considering the Quarter 3, 2010/11 GLA Monitoring Report. Today we have witnesses from the Fire Authority and the Police Authority and we have some questions. We are going to start with the Fire Authority. I know this has been discussed at massive length at the Fire Authority itself and there was initially quite a scare story about this but it was subsequently clarified. Could you just tell us, for our record, what safeguards are in place in the event of the collapse of AssetCo? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): We do not anticipate any loss of availability of the fleet whatever happens to AssetCo itself. We have had conversations both with AssetCo and with the bank and we are very confident that fleet availability will remain consistent through the way that contract is set up through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangement and the various funding vehicles that are in place. Availability has remained at plus 99% as it has always been throughout the period. . John Biggs (Chairman): Ok. So the structure of the contract does not in any way mean that the fire engines can be impounded or taken by the leasing arrangement? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): We have had guarantees on that. John Biggs (Chairman): Right. You have guarantees about that. I do again understand that you have had detailed conversations with the Fire Authority about this but we have a corporate oversight role. Maybe you could send us some information about this just for our satisfaction. It raises questions about risk transfer with PFIs more generally. Obviously you did some pretty detailed work before you entered into this contract but can you tell us, I suppose, at a high level, what satisfaction you have that if unanticipated events such as bankruptcy go ahead you have all of your interests protected? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Is this about AssetCo or more generally? John Biggs (Chairman): I think it is about AssetCo as an example.
Page 7 Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): As I have said, we are confident, for instance with AssetCo, that our access to the fleet and availability of the fleet remain consistent and it has done through the period. John Biggs (Chairman): I suppose I am talking about it as much in terms of contracts and risk transfer. So, one enters into a contract with AssetCo, AssetCo is meant to provide this service. Hopefully it will continue to do so to the end of its contract for an agreed sum, subject to various contract terms and conditions. In the event that that contract failed, you would obviously still have to put out fires, rescue cats from trees, get people out of lifts; all those sorts of things. The question that often emerges with public sector PFI contracts and transfers to private companies centres around the fact that you cannot actually transfer the liability or the responsibility in quite the way that you could if it was simply a private contract where you would pick up the wreckage afterwards. Can you talk us a bit through that or is there stuff that you can provide us with about that? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): It might be easier to provide you with some of the detail on this rather than discuss it here because obviously it is a commercial arrangement, so rather than discussing some of this in a public meeting it might be easier to write to you. John Biggs (Chairman): Anything you write to us with will enter the public realm I think unless there is some very good legal reason why it should not. Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): There are step-in rights in the contract, we are assured of that. That means we will not lose the fleet - the fire engines - if AssetCo were to go under. John Biggs (Chairman): Are there any financial consequences for the Authority out of the hiccup which took place with AssetCo? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): No. John Biggs (Chairman): None whatsoever. What about the provision of the reserve fire-fighters: 700, I think, fire-fighters provided? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Similarly -- John Biggs (Chairman): That is still in place and safeguarded? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): That is the same, yes. John Biggs (Chairman): Is this a trailblazer in terms of fire authorities, this sort of contract? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Well Lincolnshire also have a PFI arrangement with AssetCo actually for their fleet. I am not aware of any other fire brigades that have this arrangement.
Page 8 John Biggs (Chairman): In the event that the High Court had not forced the money to come forward to call off the creditors - the Inland Revenue - what would have happened to this contract? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): It is hard to predict exactly what would have happened but you would imagine that you would be into some winding up arrangement around AssetCo who would go into liquidation, administration etc. These were the conversations that we had with the bank about what happens in that instance and how the step-in rights work. John Biggs (Chairman): I can sense that I am not going to get much further forwards this morning, which is fine. Do Members have any further questions? Richard Barnbrook (AM): Thank you. I think John’s answered most of them. I remember similar statements being made just prior to me coming in here in 2008 with regards to the PFIs and sub-contracts with Transport for London (TfL) and the Underground and that ended up being a horrendous mess where we were being told as the public and I’m sure the chambers here were being told, “No problem at all, there will be a bail-out situation somewhere along the line and there will be safeguards”. Yet we all know what happened with TfL and the private contracts going out for the maintenance and upkeep of London Underground. So even though you are making it quite clear that the safeguards are in place, this £4 million - which is sort of keeping this company afloat - are you suggesting there is no way at all that the GLA may come back later and have to pick up the costs of some mistake that takes place with regard to this company which still seems to be wavering a little bit? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): I do not see a point in which this would result in additional cost to us. I think the point is more about the point that has been raised around availability and access to the fleet. That has been our area of focus and that is where the guarantee is. Richard Barnbrook (AM): Those guarantees are solid, that if it does become a mess and comes straight back to us, a financial burden on the GLA will not occur? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): No. Richard Barnbrook (AM): Thank you very much. Richard Tracey (AM): Chairman, I am actually the Vice Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) -- John Biggs (Chairman): Does that mean it is your fault? Richard Tracey (AM): No, not at all. Certainly I would take credit along with my colleagues for the assurances that have been given to the members of the Fire Authority by the Commissioner. It may well be that when you ask for a letter to be sent to us, it may be a good thing if we in the GLA receive as a committee the letter which the Commissioner wrote to all of us in the Fire Authority. It did spell out very clearly the sort of reassurance that Sue Budden has given and it also went over the various changes of the management of AssetCo and also the alternative
Page 9 companies that, of course, could take this over. There are various specialist companies – I am sure Mr Dobson will tell us – there are various other specialist companies that could equally be doing the same job as AssetCo. Gareth Bacon (AM): I do not know how much you are able to say about this because we know about it, but I do not know whether we can say it in this meeting, the reason why AssetCo got into financial trouble and the debt to the Inland Revenue. Are you able to talk about that in this meeting as to what had happened there? I know the reason and it might be helpful to put the facts on the table rather than allow people to assume that it is simply that AssetCo are incompetent, because that is not the case is it? John Biggs (Chairman): It looked as if it was a dispute with their shareholders. Gareth Bacon (AM): How much are we able to say about that? Because it was due to acquisitions of other assets was it not, and unpaid tax in -- Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): It was a story that is replicated everywhere about cash-flow, which is where most companies struggle when they get into problems; not about the underlying value of the company. It is about the ability to manage where it was in terms of the contracts it was managing, acquisitions it was taking on and then its core obligations around its creditors, partly through its relationship with the work it was doing for us. Richard Barnbrook (AM): Does that mean that it was trying too much with too little resource? Gareth Bacon (AM): No, it does not mean that at all. It is because they acquired other assets that had not actually paid the appropriate levels of tax, was it not? It was not a question of AssetCo being run badly, it is more that the things that they acquired and the liabilities they inherited of those, was it not? Richard Barnbrook (AM): Were these not checked over prior to -- Gareth Bacon (AM): I think that that is where the question actually should be directed. It is due diligence rather than the competence of the company to run the contract. It is entirely competent, is it not? The value of the contracts it has under its books now means that its financial future is completely solid, is it not? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): That is my understanding, certainly. They have got a new Executive Chairman appointed. Richard Barnbrook (AM): No disrespect Gareth or Sue, but any company that does not make a clear search into assets it is about to take on or has a clear overview of what it is about to do in a transaction for a public service, , leaves me feeling that they should have done more research before they went down these lines of acquisition. Gareth Bacon (AM): My interpretation of it is that the due diligence could have been slightly more robust and you might want to comment on that. John Biggs (Chairman): Is there not a more basic question which is if you are providing a public service like this, which is an essential service, you need to try to
Page 10 insulate it if you can from mistakes that may be made in the other part of that company structure. Gareth Bacon (AM): I do not think that is an unfair comment. I do think though that what we saw with AssetCo was overblown. It was four people with, let us face it, a political axe to grind. The placing is a normal corporate action; it is a normal thing that happens in many commercial companies. John Biggs (Chairman): I have no axe to grind, politically or otherwise. Gareth Bacon (AM): It was not you that I was thinking about. John Biggs (Chairman): Ok. I know the union was very exercised about this -- Gareth Bacon (AM): Yes, that is where I was aiming my -- John Biggs (Chairman): If you are able to share it with us that letter that would be very helpful. Shall we move on. The next question is about staff sickness and a very good trend until, according my chart, about May/June 2009. There was a downward trend of staff sickness and since then it was meant to go down but it has gone up, basically. What can you tell us about that? Was that a corporate concern and does it present risks for the organisation? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): Yes, it is of corporate concern is the answer to your first question. As you say, up until the period of industrial relations difficulties that we had in the autumn, we were doing quite well with our sickness levels. Certainly for operational staff, which is the majority of our workforce, we reduced our sickness levels down to about 3.76% which is just a tad above our target of 3.6%. That was before the dispute and when we got to the end of December following the dispute, or still during the dispute actually, the sickness levels peaked at 8.19%. A lot of that was due to long-term sickness and now we are starting to see the levels come back to the levels that we had prior to the dispute where at the end of March we were back down to about 4.4% for our operational staff. In terms of the actions we are taking all of our sickness cases are subject to a rigorous case management process and that is why we managed to make the improvements in the sickness levels that we had. We have also introduced and agreed a range of recommendations at our Finance and Personnel Committee in the autumn; things like more robust disciplinary processes to manage sickness, looking at our policies, looking at the performance of our managers to manage sickness and also looking at some contractual issues as well where we can actually reduce sickness. Up until the dispute, actually we were doing quite well. John Biggs (Chairman): So your take on that then is that it was purely dispute- related or was there some coincidence? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): According to the figures we think it is pretty much purely dispute-related. In terms of our support staff it is probably worth considering that they are only very fractionally above the target. I think the blip in sickness we have had for operational station-based staff was because of the dispute.
Page 11 John Biggs (Chairman): Right. Obviously someone watching this from a critical perspective might say, “Well, you know, is there not something wrong with a) the management and b) the workforce if sickness levels escalate during an industrial dispute”. I assume this is quite common within many organisations and although there may be some people, I suppose, who would call in with a ‘sickie’ rather than lose their day’s wages on a dispute, there may be people with chronic health problems who would have come to work but who chose not to at a time of dispute. Do you have a feel for what has happened here? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): I think our view is that what happened was disappointing but expected. I think the measures that we are taking in terms of the improvements we are putting forward will help us. Our record over the last couple of years shows that we are taking it very seriously and making some very good improvements. In terms of not standing still, the recommendations we have agreed as a way forward will improve and get things back to target pretty quickly next year. John Biggs (Chairman): So, at the peak there was a doubling roughly from the position that we got down to. Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): Yes, there was. John Biggs (Chairman): Roughly under 4% to over 8%. Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): Yes. Now it is back down to 4.4% at the end of March. John Biggs (Chairman): I assumed this was examined in some detail at the Fire Authority? Richard Tracey (AM): Yes. Chairman, the Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Councillor Heaster, has taken a particular interest in this. I mean I think it is true to say, is it not, that he is rather urging you to look at the idea of work back/pay back measures which are now applied in quite a few of the London local authorities and very likely others too. John Biggs (Chairman): What does that mean? Richard Tracey (AM): It means that it is effectively a penalty situation if the sickness is not properly certificated. I think that is really -- Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): Yes. It is when sickness gets to a certain level staff are either required to pay back in terms of time or in terms of money once the sickness goes above a certain level. We are in consultation with that at the minute with the Fire Brigades Union but there is a range of other issues that we are doing as well in terms of introducing things like an attendance factor -- John Biggs (Chairman): So a bonus for coming to work? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): There is a whole raft.
Page 12 John Biggs (Chairman): That is effectively what it is though, is it not, an attendance factor? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): More a penalty for not coming to work. John Biggs (Chairman): This is a murky area potentially. Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): There is probably about 15 or 20 recommendations that we are taking forward into next year. I think that we will see even more improvement in our sickness levels. John Biggs (Chairman): Our briefing tells us that as part of the continuous savings and efficiencies within the organisation there has been a planned reduction in the number of HR attendance management staff. Is that being followed through or does this event point towards delaying or not implementing that? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): No. We have made reductions already. It is part of a HR project that we have got in place and there will be further reductions this year in terms of the numbers of staff that advise on attendance management. John Biggs (Chairman): If you have a Human Resources department which is based on, among other things, an assumption that 4% absenteeism through sickness becomes 8%, does that present a capacity problem? Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): No, it does not really, no. The Attendance Management Team is a team that is available for all of our managers but as well as that one of the recommendations that we put in place in terms of performance management for our managers means that it is also a line management responsibility as well. The Attendance Management Team is really there for specialist and difficult cases but we would expect all of our managers to take a more active role in attendance management in the future. That is one of the recommendations that we are going to be implementing next year. John Biggs (Chairman): How will things be different in the event you have further industrial action? Not that we are anticipating it. Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): I think in terms of things like the attendance factor, work back/pay back. There will be a number of recommendations we are putting forward which I think will probably make staff think twice about taking sickness when they are not really sick. John Biggs (Chairman): Shall we move on to the exciting area of reserves. The Fire Authority has historically come in under budget, I think every year since the GLA was created. It does not mean that it will in the future of course. This year the reserves were used to help support the Fire Authority budget and also indirectly to help the GLA family budgets by allowing precept to be redirected to Police Authority. Can you tell us what your position is on reserves for the coming year? Do you have an assumption about what you are going to be using?
Page 13 Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes. We are using £14 million to support the budget for 2011/12. John Biggs (Chairman): And? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): No assumption on reserve use for 2012/13 because we always have that discussion with the GLA during the budget process. We do not take an independent view, as it were, about reserve use. John Biggs (Chairman): The budget settlement for LFEPA is back-loaded, which is a very ugly term, and it means that reserves would tend to be more useful towards the end of that budget period than at the beginning. So superficially it is not a good idea to blow them at the start. Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): We did some work on this with the GLA during the last budget round. You may recall the Mayor asked all the functional bodies as part of the November bit of the process to look again at reserves and what their minimum level might be. We made a statement at that point saying we would like to hang on to around 7% – around £30 million – to support the budget in later years. Our financial projections at that time, and with the additional underspend that you can see here today, meant that it did still mean there was money available to support the budget in 2011/12. We still do have funds. We would do this in discussion with the GLA about what they would be looking to do group-wise for 2012/13, but from the settlement the back-loading can only really happen in 2013/14 and 2014/15. I do not know if you remember that the overall average reduction stated across the four year Comprehensive Spending Review period for Fire was 25%. If we were going to be back-loaded in line with that, we would face a 22% reduction in grant in those final two years. In order for them to do that, they would have to change the formula again, so we need to see what comes out of the local government resource review before we know where we stand. John Biggs (Chairman): As I understand it, assuming there is no underspend this year - and we have in the past had them but as we agreed, we cannot rely on them - your reserves will be down to £39.5 million at the end of this year having spent £14 million. Roughly £30 million is the recommended minimum level of reserves in your organisation. Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): My normal statement around the minimum level of reserves is that we hold onto 2.5% which is around £11 million. The statement we made in November about the £30 million was in response to the Mayor saying, “Have another look and take on board where you think you might be with future grant settlement”. I think the timing works but when we start doing the budget for 2012/13, 2013/14, we might be looking again at reserve use and I think that stacks up with our forecast. John Biggs (Chairman): Your real bottom line minimum is about £11.5 million? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes. Depending on what the underlying budget is. So we say 2.5% really.
Page 14 John Biggs (Chairman): Which would imply that you have - not that you want to give this all away - roughly £28 million of wiggle room over the next two years with our reserves, so it should be £14 million per annum. If you had the same pro-rata precept settlement, you were simply managing within your grant and you would be able to use a £14 million cushion -- Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes, to smooth the impact. That is how it has been stated. John Biggs (Chairman): Given the back-loaded nature of these settlements, one would assume that you might need additional sums for restructuring or whatever needed to happen. So you are potentially in quite a challenging position. Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes. As with the rest of the public sector I think. We had a good grant settlement in relation to other fire authorities for 2011/12 but there is worse to come. John Biggs (Chairman): So in terms of your budget making timetable, obviously there is the statutory timetable which starts with the Mayor’s guidance in the summer but you are presumably doing some thinking already about how you will strategise for next year. Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes. We have got pretty much a continuous process now because there was a lot of uncertainty last year because we had the Mayor’s target but we were still waiting on the grant settlement. Our planning assumption was that it had to be worse than the Mayor’s target but then it wasn’t, so we now know where we are for 2011/12, 2012/13. There are still savings that we need to find for 2012/13 but our focus is on what we do for those subsequent two years and how we manage what the various scenarios might be. Internally, at officer level, we have a continuous process at the moment. John Biggs (Chairman): Is your assumption that there would have to be service level changes in order to meet a 25% reduction? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): The money that would need to be found if they were to find the rest of the 25% in the last two years, it would be very difficult to do that just from our back office. But that does not necessarily then mean a change of service levels; it is looking at the way in which we provide the service. So that would be the piece of work that we would do around the future London Safety Plan. John Biggs (Chairman): As I recall from previous conversations – maybe at the Assembly, maybe at the main Budget Committee, I cannot remember where it was now – the London Safety Plan is reviewed every five years or so? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Four years I think. John Biggs (Chairman): The next review is not due for another two or three years?
Page 15 Gary Dobson (Director of Operational Policy & Training, LFEPA): 2013 I think is the date of the next London Safety Plan. Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): So that fits with the -- John Biggs (Chairman): So we are now in 2011/12. The review would be concluded in 2013? Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes. It would kick off from the start of 2013 which would be perceived as the first year of the back-loading if that was to be faced. John Biggs (Chairman): Right. If you did want to change levels of service, number of fire stations or whatever, you would have to do it through this -- Sue Budden (Acting Director of Finance & Contractual Services, LFEPA): Yes. John Biggs (Chairman): -- strategy process. Ok. Are there any further questions from Members on this? I have a feeling I have exhausted all lines of questioning. It has been a joy as always speaking to both of you and can I wish you a happy day.
Page 16 Appendix 2 Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee – 14 April 2011 Item 6: Mayor’s Decision List: 13 January 2011 – 9 March 2011 John Biggs (Chairman): Mr Coleman, we have some questions, as you know, for you about the World Cup bid and why we put ourselves in for it for more than we anticipated or whether that is accurate. So shall I start the ball rolling and ask you why no GLA budget was allocated for the cost of the bidding process. Take us through that. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Why no GLA budget was allocated for the cost of the bidding process? John Biggs (Chairman): Yes. Well, it appears not to have been according to the audit trail we have seen. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I do not think that is right actually. John Biggs (Chairman): Ok, go on. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I think if you look at the Mayoral Decisions (MDs), there was an original MD to approve the provision of support for England 2018 -- John Biggs (Chairman): Which number was that? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): That was at 502. John Biggs (Chairman): No budget against that I think. Is that right? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): That is right but then there was an MD 622 which provided a budget of £250,000. John Biggs (Chairman): 546? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): 622 I am on, the MD. John Biggs (Chairman): We have a 546 in April 2010. That is London’s bid to England 2018 to become a host city - £155,000 - is that related to this at all? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Yes, 546 indeed approved a grant to Visit London for development for a bid of £50,000 and 622 approved an activation budget of £250,000. David Gallie (Assistant Director of Finance, GLA): Just to clarify, obviously, that is from our contingency sum.
Page 17 John Biggs (Chairman): Obviously we recognise that good ideas come along and they may not have been initially budgeted for, but are you happy at the process that we went through here and that until we reached until MD 750 at least that we did not have an anticipated cost? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): No. I think as is clear from the fact that we had approved MD 750, at that stage the Mayor agreed a further £145,000 as a contribution to England 2018’s direct costs and clearly that was in addition to what had been agreed by MD 622. Although I think it is worth saying that in relation to MD 622, clearly a significant amount of the costs were for activities that were not directly associated with England 2018’s costs. They were for the Football and Social Legacy Programme for the opening event of the 2010 World Cup in particular. John Biggs (Chairman): I was being whispered to at that point. I got 87% of your answer. Let us get this right. We initially bid for it, we knew there would be costs. In the initial MD there was no budget but five months later we agreed an initial bid which was to Visit London? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): We agreed £50,000 in MD 502 as a grant fund to Visit London and that was for developing the bid; that was essentially for writing the bid document. John Biggs (Chairman): Are you sure that is 502 not 546? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): No, sorry, 546. 546 agreed the £50,000 and then 622 agreed for £250,000 and 750 approved the additional £145,000. John Biggs (Chairman): As I understood it, there was an expectation that part of the costs would be in kind in some way. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Yes. I think that that was a discussion which did take place between England 2018 and, in fact, between ourselves and Manchester. I think both in the case of London and Manchester there was consideration that some of the costs might come in kind rather than cash. In particular I think there had been a thought that during the inspection visits in those two cities they were essentially the two bases for the big inspection visit that the FIFA delegation paid in August to this country; that it might be that the councils would procure themselves accommodation and other services, presentation material and the like for England 2018. In that sense that would be directly budget-relieving value-in-kind for England 2018. Now, in the event, that is not how the inspection visit was organised. England 2018 coordinated and procured all the different elements in the visit – accommodation, the presentation material, transport and other costs – and therefore both Manchester and ourselves, ultimately, agreed to meet these costs for a cash contribution. John Biggs (Chairman): So they do it all themselves and so we give them £145,000. From their point of view, if we had done it for them it would have been in kind but it would nevertheless have still been a cost to us unless we had someone with free hotels.
Page 18 Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Yes, indeed, if we had done it -- John Biggs (Chairman): So it would have to have been budgeted for somewhere. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Indeed. If we had done it we would have had to pay for it ourselves, yes. John Biggs (Chairman): However that £145,000 did not appear in MD 622. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): No, I think that is right. I think that there was a difference in view, shall I say, between England 2018 and some people here about whether we should be making a full contribution of £250,000 to their direct costs or whether some of that could be defrayed through our own marketing activities. I think it is fairly clear that that was not, in fact, the position that was agreed with any other city or indeed with Manchester, which was on all fours with us, and at the time I confirmed this position directly with Sir Howard Bernstein (Chief Executive, Manchester City Council] at Manchester to make sure that we acted in exactly the same way as Manchester Council did. On that basis it was clear – and I discussed the situation with the Mayor – that we should make the same contribution as every other host city - including Manchester - had done, which was precisely what we did in the event. John Biggs (Chairman): If I was an average Londoner I would say, “Well, hang on they lost the bid, we agreed a sum with them, why should we come back and bail them out later?” Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Well to be clear, we reached the agreement with them in relation to these costs verbally prior to the bid decision. The actual MD formally approving the expenditure I had set was after the bid decision had been made. We obviously all very much regret the bid outcome and the manner in which that took place, but clearly all that happened there essentially was that London did exactly the same as every other one of the bid cities: Manchester, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Bristol, Sunderland and so on. John Biggs (Chairman): This is maybe one of the bad practices – I do not know if it is a bad practice – but in different circumstances would we have expected this £145,000 to be met from the London Development Agency’s (LDA) budgets, for example? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): There might been some discussion around that, yes. Clearly, I mean, some of the original money was found from the LDA. Clearly the justification for putting money into this process was the economic and other benefits that would have flowed to London in particular if we had, in the event, been successful in hosting the World Cup in 2018. As such, it was a reasonable thing both for the GLA and for the LDA to do, and some of the cost of this was met from the LDA. John Biggs (Chairman): If we look across to the whole GLA family - assuming we include Visit London as being part of that family, which it sort of is and was - then we shelled out a little bit over £500,000 to support the bid.
Page 19 Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Not sure if it is as much as that. I think we had the £50,000 for Visit London agreed in MD 546, we have the £250,000 agreed in MD 622, making £300,000, and the further £145,000 approved in 750, making £445,000. John Biggs (Chairman): I think the two bits that appear in our list are Visit London, £55,000 and Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) £10,000 which I suppose is a fairly small amount in the scale of things. So roughly it comes to about £500,000. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I am not sure -- John Biggs (Chairman): Anyway, when we agreed to support the bid, did we anticipate something in the order of £500,000 being required to support the bid? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I think I would not quite put it as you have. I have not got the detail of what the OPLC and Visit London amounts were. As I have already said, a significant amount of the £250,000 that was agreed but did not go to FIFA was for events that were of very real value in London in any event. They were for the football tournament for young people, for social legacy, for the event that we staged in Trafalgar Square around the opening of the South Africa World Cup. Clearly these were events which were seen to be promotional of the bid but which had a very real value in themselves. I think you need to look at it in terms of that cost plus the £250,000 which we always did anticipate that we would spend. If you look at what other cities spent, all other cities found £250,000, most of them significantly smaller cities than London who had actually significantly less to gain than London and quite a few of those cities also spent significant additional sums on promoting the bid as well. Obviously, having lost the bid and in the circumstances that it took place, which I think everybody regards as extremely unsatisfactory, it is easy to say that we should not have done this but clearly it was a big prize at stake. We were talking about literally billions of pounds worth of potential economical benefit for London and the Mayor was very keen to do everything that he possibly could to support England’s bid and took it in that spirit. Obviously we all very much regret the eventual outcome and the manner in which it occurred. John Biggs (Chairman): Other questions from Members? Richard Tracey (AM): Just one really and it is in terms of lessons learned. You have gone through these points Neale, but we are now talking about the World Athletics Championship bid, are we not? I am not quite sure what year it is, but within the next decade. What about that? Are we going to find ourselves again with enormous commitments of this type or -- Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I think that is a very good point and it is clearly very important that we do not do that. We have until September to submit the final bid for the 2017 World Athletics Championships. We did do some preliminary work together with Government, UK Sport and OPLC when we were thinking of bidding for the 2015 Championships, which in the event we were unable to because of uncertainty about the stadium.
Page 20 We have agreed now that there needs to be some further more detailed work done on costs to ensure that we have got a clear picture and that we can reach an agreement with Government about how the costs of the tournament and, indeed, the bidding process will be met. I think it is essential that we are extremely clear about that before the bid goes in in September and that we also have a bid structure that enable us to work effectively together with UK Athletics on that. So I think if you are saying to me, “Could we have been tighter about the way in which we handled this?” I think I would have to say yes we could, and we clearly could have identified, I think, earlier what the likely full cost was going to be if we carried out the extra activities, and I think we do have to make sure we do that in relation to the 2017 bid. John Biggs (Chairman): So there is a generic lesson then which is the bare shop costs, if you like, which tend to have added to them costs for events and hospitality and other sort of -- Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I think that is right and I think with 2017 we have got to be very clear and careful about that because you always have to judge this as against, partly, what the competition is. Clearly if in relation to 2017 there were no other bidder or bidders who we thought frankly, with the greatest of respect to them, were not really in the running, then that would be one thing. The situation is not quite clear but it looks as though there may, for example, be a bid from Qatar. They could potentially be a significant competitor and that might well mean that we might need, together with Government and UK Sport, to put more money into the bid process than we otherwise would. I just think we need to be very clear about that and make sure that we have got a budget that is adequate for the bid process. John Biggs (Chairman): Of course there is a lot of tabloid journalism here and one could be viewed as cynical or opportunist if you are not careful and we are not planning to do that. All this stuff one reads about FIFA people expecting to be put up in a five star hotels and given gold bangles and all sorts of nonsense like that – are there any costs which you feel, as a public servant, are somewhat unsavoury when you look back and which one has to bear as part of this process? Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): I think we were quite careful about that but we did leave it to England 2018 to make the arrangements for the FIFA inspection visit. I have to say I think it was done in a very, very similar way to the arrangements, for example, that were made when the International Olympic Committee Evaluation Commission came to London prior to the Olympic bid. In fact, the same company was procured. Now it is true that the FIFA delegation did stay at The Dorchester, that they did have dinner with the Deputy Prime Minister, but frankly that is what everyone does and certainly that is what our competitor cities were doing. I think if you want to compete for these events, quite clearly I think the one thing which I think is clear from the coverage, and this has not directly involved ourselves but from recent coverage, is that England 2018 were extremely scrupulous in terms of observing all the FIFA rules about what could and should not be done.
Page 21 There have been stories in the press in the last week or so about people seeking payments and so on and clearly that is not something which this bid team or an England bid team, I think, would ever have entertained. John Biggs (Chairman): Are there any further questions? Well the good news about calling you up the instant you came in the door is that you can go now. Neale Coleman (Director of London 2012 Coordination, GLA): Thanks very much. John Biggs (Chairman): We have one further question on the Mayor’s Decision list which I think is for Mr Gallie – I do not think you can shed any light on this – which is from Mr Barnbrook. Richard Barnbrook (AM): This is relating to rough sleeping, page 136 of the main point of the agenda. I think everybody here would agree that Thames Reach are a very worthwhile charity with regards to rough sleeping. There is one little concern. If we are about to spend this £8.45 million, I do find it a little bit peculiar why at the bottom page it says, “Part Two of the report is confidential under the Freedom of Information Act”. Could you put a bit more meat on that, why we are not able to actually see the rest of the report? David Gallie (Assistant Director of Finance, GLA): Chair, I am afraid that I cannot answer but I will happily arrange for a reply to be made to Mr Barnbrook. Richard Barnbrook (AM): If you could do because that is one of my concerns. I will be very quick on this. Another aspect is, does this also bring in ex-service people with regard to the rough sleeping or is that another part of the GLA’s decision on homelessness? Or is this whole package put together with regard to anybody on the streets? David Gallie (Assistant Director of Finance, GLA): Again, I will happily arrange for a reply to be made on that point. John Biggs (Chairman): I think it is established that a lot of rough sleepers are ex- service people. I had a more general question which flowed out of Mr Barnbrook’s question which is about the informativeness or otherwise of the Part 1s of MDs and in some cases they are singularly uninformative. The one that caught my attention was in relation to J.P. Morgan and an agreement which the Mayor undertook with Tower Hamlets Council and possibly J.P. Morgan. The Part 1 of it was simply that there was an agreement involving J.P. Morgan and Tower Hamlets Council and the whole of the rest of the report was confidential. I think in terms of public accountability and scrutiny it may be that there are highly sensitive matters but it should be possible to have a lower level of opacity than that, and I think it might make sense for us to probe that as a scrutiny body because if you do not know publicly what this is all about then it degrades and makes impossible the process of scrutiny. There is a price to be paid in terms of transparency. David Gallie (Assistant Director of Finance, GLA): Certainly. I mean the stance would be we would look to put everything into Part 1 unless there is an explicit and good reason to put it into Part 2. That would be the natural stance that we would be
Page 22 taking. There are obviously commercially sensitive contracts that would be a natural exclusion from that but the presumption would be that we should publish openly. John Biggs (Chairman): Will Members be happy if I write just probing that? All: Agreed. John Biggs (Chairman): Because again, that relates to Mr Barnbrook’s question about rough sleepers where you would think it would be possible to spell out in greater detail what is going to happen without breaching confidentiality questions. Maybe in some cases you cannot, but it does not seem implausible.
Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 24 Appendix 3 Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee – 14 April 2011 Item 5: Quarter 3 2010-11 GLA Group Monitoring Report Gareth Bacon (AM): Relating to the latest forecast for the 2010/11 underspend, there has been some discrepancy on the figures or they have moved a bit and we are quite interested in how and why they have moved. So what is the forecast at the moment? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Well, obviously, in this report and the forecast is £3.5 million. You are referring I presume to the £11 million that is -- Gareth Bacon (AM): Absolutely. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): The nature of the Authority is that the £3.6 billion budget and the forecasts had built up during the year from the lowest level. We then take a view at the top where we think people are being overly cautious. So as we get to the end of this year, particularly with some of the uncertainties there have been around public order and so forth, a number of the business groups, we think, have been overly cautious in the way they have built their forecast. At period 11, which the Chairman will be seeing this afternoon at the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), it will be £6.4 million in period 11 and we are confident that we will deliver the £11 million when everything is smoothed out and -- Gareth Bacon (AM): So it was simply adjusted forecasting. They built in a bit of caution that you thought was a little bit too cautious? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Yes. We believe that the pressures we were putting on around the inanimate objects and productivity and trying to encourage people not to spend, but the nature of the forecasting is that people tend to hold onto the underspends they have got and say, “Well, I might need it by the end of the year”. Gareth Bacon (AM): I mean I am perfectly happy to accept all of that. I think that is the nature of proper accounting and that is -- Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I would also say, of course, we are talking -- Gareth Bacon (AM): A tiny amount of your own budget. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): -- less than 1% of the -- Gareth Bacon (AM): No, I agree and I think we can focus too much on small numbers. Nevertheless to the man out there £6 million is -- Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): No, absolutely. I understand. No problem.
Page 25 Gareth Bacon (AM): -- is a lot of money. Sometimes there is some spongy forecasting in terms of public sector bodies for various reasons and normally it is just natural caution, I completely accept that. We are now, of course, in different financial circumstances; some that we have not seen really. Is the forecasting process going to be more robust in forthcoming years in your view? Have you done any sort of adjustment in terms of policy on that? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Well, we are but as part of the drive and focus on the inanimate and productivity and so forth - before we get into operational capability - a number of the budgets are being centralised. So as we are looking at some of the service improvement programmes like transport and catering, a lot of those where there would have been more discretion. Therefore you get the position where if you forecast things across a large number, everybody has a little piece and therefore that becomes a very big number, very quickly. We are trying to pool a lot of those into the central forecasting so that we have a much less likelihood of a massive contingency being built up by everyone having a little bit. Those programmes in themselves are designed to drive down costs and bring out savings to deliver the budget cuts we have to deliver, so the nature of those is to make sure you are not cutting further than you need to because you have got this contingency somewhere else. Gareth Bacon (AM): Yes, that is fine. I am happy with that Chairman. I do not have anything to follow up unless anyone else has? Shall I move onto the next question, because the next question is around numbers - well obviously - but it is strength of numbers really for civilian and police officer staff. It is really why the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has been operating under its forecast strength on the civilian and the warranted officers side. Perhaps you could answer that. Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): I will pass it over to Nick but my comment on that would be that the current restructure is looking at where the most appropriate resources will need to go. The restructure is a programme that is looking at the right people in the right places with the right jobs, looking at where we can make the most effective efficiency cuts. Therefore, there are a number of places at the moment that are showing under strength but with the restructure I think that will balance out. To replace positions that we probably know we are going to have to lose I think -- Gareth Bacon (AM): Is not sensible. Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): – is not sensible. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I would echo that. I would also say that obviously we were hit earlier in the year with the additional £28 million in-year savings. While our task was to try to find those without affecting police numbers, we had to be cautious about whether we could deliver those in-year and so the pause on recruitment was a sort of security against that. In fact, we have managed to probably deliver both the £28 million saving and with some underspend in effect that was our belts and braces piece. I would say though that when you look at where those have come from, a large portion of them have actually come as part of our focus on productivity; they have come out of HR functions, they have come out of the Directorate of Information (DOI) functions. So it is this drive to sort of remove officers from, I would not say from behind desks, but from posts that perhaps could be done by civilians or just when you re-focus your productivity you can do them a different way.
Page 26 Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): Could I just add to that. It is just a thought that has come to me. The workforce deployment meet, which is a regular meet, looks at where those vacancies are across the whole of the service so that we do not have one particular borough or particular area being disadvantaged as a result of the reduction. That would also try to balance that out across the whole of the 32 boroughs. Gareth Bacon (AM): Now the recruitment tap is being turned back on is it not? The reports are forecasting 499 fewer officers than was initially planned at the recruitment stage. However, you have got 201 trainees and 95 seconded officers from other forces, have you not? The 499 figure, does that take into account the 201 trainees and the 95 seconded officers or are they separate? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I cannot comment on the 95 just because I am not sure, but the 201, yes it does but then the original forecast included 264 trainees under the old Initial Police Learning and Development Programme scheme. So, in fact, there are actually slightly fewer trainees in that number than there were. Gareth Bacon (AM): So the 499 figure, which is what I am getting to, is accurate? Ok, that is fine. What is the prediction for officer numbers or the number of new officers coming forward in the forthcoming financial year? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): At the moment I think the latest numbers have gone out of 1,200; that is what the current recruitment has been opened up for. We will then review where we are and that is all I can say at the moment. Gareth Bacon (AM): Because the 1,200 will only be replacing natural wastage anyway, will it not? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Well, it will be replacing the natural wastage that we have allowed to happen but also obviously, as was referred to, we do not want to recruit people to posts that we are removing. One of our big focuses, however, is the Olympics and we do not want to be under-strength in the wrong places for the Olympics. That will factor into our recruit pro-forma. Gareth Bacon (AM): I am broadly happy. John Biggs (Chairman): Is that 1,200 though in officers partly funded by a reduction in Police Community Safety Officers (PCSO) numbers? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Correct. John Biggs (Chairman): Of roughly how many? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I am sorry, I could not give you an exact number off the top of my head. John Biggs (Chairman): I have to declare I am a member of the Finance Committee of the Police Authority --
Page 27 : Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS) You can ask me again this afternoon and maybe I will know then. John Biggs (Chairman): You can give me a different answer this afternoon. In my recollection, and this is in the corporate plan which has been shared with the public, it is of the order of 600, I think, PCSO posts disappearing. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I just cannot remember because it was changing, yes. At one time it was 600 but I could not tell you whether that was definite or in the final version. John Biggs (Chairman): Yes, fine. Are there any further questions on this section? Gareth Bacon (AM): Just one to follow that up. The 600 PCSO’s - and this may have been trailed in other meetings, I do not know - if that is right, is that redundancy of PCSOs or is that not filling vacancies? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Part of the reason that we have switched on the recruitment immediately is that includes, I think, it is something like 200 PCSOs who had reached the level required to become PCs -- Gareth Bacon (AM): Police officers. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): -- previously. So instead of having to make them potentially redundant -- Gareth Bacon (AM): So it is converting them to police officers. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): -- it has allowed them to convert to police officers. Gareth Bacon (AM): And then not filling their post. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): And the rest through natural wastage we would hope, yes. Gareth Bacon (AM): Okay, so not redundancies for the other 400? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): Not at this stage no, on PCSOs. Gareth Bacon (AM): Thank you. Richard Tracey (AM): Yes. Can I ask a new question which is what is the forecast for underspend in 2010/11? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I think in the report you have we are forecasting that we would spend £206.5 million which is about £70 million below the original budget. I suspect that that will sneak down, although not too much more, although we have at the moment in period 12 got some issues because of the Home Office mandate on IT that might just delay us on some spend, so it slips from March to
Page 28 April. It could be a matter of weeks but the nature of these things is that the cut-off matters. I think that is what we have been reporting all year that we thought that the plan probably was over optimistic when we came to look at it in terms of what we will deliver at the year end. I think on top of that we obviously have been reviewing everything more thoroughly because of the concerns about whether we were doing the right things going forward and not creating costs in the system that we would not be able to afford in the future. So I think that has had a natural slowdown in the process during the year, particularly on DOI spending. Richard Tracey (AM): Are there any operational points that the underspend might bring about do you think? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): Not that spring immediately to mind, although nearly all of the operations now are subject to an agreement with partners and community around where the most appropriate spends would be. The focus in this is driven very much by restructure; it is around putting the right people in the right places. I know that sounds obvious and that is what we have been doing anyway, but we are actually looking at all of the asset that is available across the partner, police and community. So it has been very much more asset-based policing and concentrating our priority locations, our repeat victims and our repeat offenders. The question of will the underspend cut in, yes I think it will have an impact; what that impact that will be I do not know. We are seeing that acquisitive crime is becoming a bigger driver of crime: the theft of property. A good example of that is mobile phones; still a big driver in acquisitive crime. But all of the operational plans that the borough commanders, the area commanders and the cross business group teams are putting together are all now in consultation with their partners and community groups and look at utilising spends like the recent Communities Against Guns, Gangs and Knives piece that can actually focus dedicated spends into areas perhaps where community safety partnerships have looked to reduce spends. John Biggs (Chairman): I want to ask a question about capital which was on the Safer Neighbourhoods Scheme. Again this is, I think, for the record that the Police Authority has until this year had a policy of trying to roll out neighbourhood bases - if you like - sort of small premises through which neighbourhood policing teams can operate in which are hopefully in proximity to the wards that those neighbourhood policing teams are policing. I think one of the reasons for the underspend is because there has been a freeze on that process, is that right? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): That is correct, yes. John Biggs (Chairman): We are not a policy committee but there was a programme to roll out capital through capital spending, a programme of bases, and that has been frozen. Is that a pause or is that a reversal? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I think that the MPA would agree that it was a pause because of the Safer Neighbourhood reviews that were going on, and just to make sure that, given that it was a reasonable capital investment, because the programme has gone a long way and there are lots of Safer Neighbourhoods bases out there. But all the Safer Neighbourhoods Teams are
Page 29 operational, even if it is not from their own Safer Neighbourhood Base or they have got a joint one or whatever. So the question of the review is, is it necessary to keep rolling out the remaining bases or have we got enough now? John Biggs (Chairman): And it may or may or not be? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): And it may or may not be, correct. Richard Barnbrook (AM): Chairman, a subject right at my heart: knife crime. Some of you may have heard me speak on this before. I just recently have come back from seeing Detective Chief Superintendents from both Trident and also Southwark discussing this amongst other matters. Knife crime, I have figures here: up 4.9%, 545 incidents. Now I know from talking to other officers how you categorise these elements. A gun crime is that someone has got a gun, it does not mean that they have used it but they have actually got a gun, possibly with intent. I understand this aspect of it but when we have these sort of figures coming back that knives are still on the street, I am quite happy that one supermarket, no name mentioned, went under because it was easier to go into that supermarket and buy a knife on the bottom shelf than it was to go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and get six portions of chicken. 14 year-olds were being refused the chicken but they were given the knife. So I am quite happy that this is actually common sense coming back in. The question is, how successful have these initiatives been in trying to reduce serious acquisition crime here in London? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): How successful? You quite rightly quote figures there and the knife crime increase. You will also have seen the gun crime decrease and a pretty decent decrease, I think. Also, a decrease in serious youth violence and a decrease in most serious violence and assault with injury. So there is that piece that you quite rightly put up around intimated knife as opposed to necessarily seen or used. I think a number of operations have been introduced in order to tackle violence and gang-related violence and a lot of the violence is driven by knife crime. Operations like Operation Blunt, which came in in March 2008, which was always a long-term tactic to deal with violence and knife crime, particularly youth crime, have seen a number of successes over that period of time. We have just recently increased the number of officers that are deployed on Blunt so that there is more asset that is available to be flexibly tasked across the service. All the boroughs have their individual plans to deal with gang-related violence and knife crime from knife arches to schools officers to more covert tactics. A recent operation that has been introduced called Operation Connect which is looking at working with partners and community to identify the most harmful individuals; the most high risk individuals that drive violence specifically linked to gangs. The new operation has only started this year but builds on the organisational learning and good practice that has come from some really good work that has gone on across the boroughs. We have always said that knife crime is there for the long-haul, it is changing attitudes and behaviours and things like the recent Kinsella Report that looked at just that; changing hearts and minds, attitudes, behaviours. That identifies,
Page 30 for me, the real driver around knife crime. It is not just a police issue, it has to be a partner and community issue to really be effectively deal with it. Richard Barnbrook (AM): You mentioned about previous experience and learning upon that. I hope it is not a sort of scenario of the horse and gate and bolted and all that sort of stuff. Why could this not have taken place earlier when we saw this arising five, six, seven, eight years ago, a steady increase in knife crime. I am quite happy something is being done now but there are still situations across London boroughs where it is being mentioned in local council. Can we do more with arches and their argument is, “Well, the thing is if you have arches there little Johnny and little Jane run round the corner, throw the knife into the hedge, go through the school arch, go back there at lunchtime or break time, reach through at break time, pull out the knife”, you have got Stanley knives in classrooms, all this type of thing going on. What I am getting at is what sort of resources are being put out to joint community educational projects and also the MPS. Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): A number, effectively. The anti-violence – Richard Barnbrook (AM): What I mean is, are you getting sufficient resources, not only in the police but where the community itself can work hand in hand -- Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): One of my portfolios is Blunt, one of my portfolios is Connect. So if you have got any money I would be more than happy to take the money. So are there enough resources. These days, we recognise that we have got to be efficient around what we do and how we do it and put it into the right places, and part of that work is now being done. This is perhaps driven a little bit by the economy; what committed resources have we got and are they targeted in the right places so that the right priority locations are targeted to the right individuals in order to prevent repeat victims and target repeat offenders. I guess the question is, do we have enough resources? That is what these operations are trying to do. That tactics that are used are always intelligence lead and, in fairness, knife arches are a reasonable tactic I would say but a very overt tactic. You are quite right; unless you can get captive that then go through then it is not a particularly effective overt tactic. I would much prefer knife arches - and this is how we tend to use them - to be used with surveillance that sees little Johnny do that and they still go through, they raise the profile but then they catch them with the weapons. The tactics that are used within Blunt are weapon sweeps but that is based on community intelligence, partner information, CCTV use. It is using all of those resources that are out for us; the asset based policing bit I mentioned before, to target them in the right area and CCTV for me is a really good example. Are we utilising the CCTV systems that we have got. Richard Barnbrook (AM): Another comment on this is Operation Blunt. Are there plans possibly to stop this programme and whether Operation Autumn Night will continue through the summer? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): Yes, I have heard this over last couple of weeks a lot. Blunt is not stopping; there is more asset that is going into Blunt. Blunt is now deployed on nearly all of the areas, so there is actually more asset now into Blunt than there was in the last financial year. The area bases and the
Page 31 borough bases support Blunt in terms of resource allocation to it more than it did last year, so it is definitely not stopping. Richard Barnbrook (AM): Autumn Night, will that continue? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): Autumn Night, again, is a tactic that looks at a particular temporal analysis in terms of where and when do robberies go up. We often see a peak at summer time, we often seek a peak around school periods and between certain times. Autumn Night is designed as a long-term tactic to put high visibility policing into our high profile areas. So those tactics are ongoing as we speak. They are based on either night time economy or high peak -- Richard Barnbrook (AM): There is another question which I do not expect you to answer but I want to put it on record as I have done with the Mayor. Blunt 1, Blunt 2, all quite nice, all quite wonderful. It is not really a massive deterrent. Would you, and again I do not think you can answer this, consider or push for, if enough people came forward, to actually create a mandatory prison sentence for -- John Biggs (Chairman): Mr Barnbrook, that is not really the remit of the Police Service. Obviously there are debates about sentencing policy but that is really for Government. Richard Barnbrook (AM): I know. If the police were to put their voice in to a public arena would they agree? John Biggs (Chairman): I think it is the nature of the policing service that although the Commissioners may comment on such matters it is not really, I think, for Mr McNally to comment on such policy matters. I think it would place him in an inappropriate place. Would you agree with me? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): I would agree but I will comment on your first part of your question; is Blunt an effective tactic. I really do believe it is. It gives us the flexibility because Blunt is deployed on the basis of intelligence reviewed on a 24 hour basis and is deployable throughout that 24 hours. So if an incident happens in Lambeth and the Blunt asset is currently deployed in Hackney, for instance, as soon as that incident happens that additional resource is available to flex across the MPS boundaries and into a different area. I do think it is an effective tactic. Richard Barnbrook (AM): My first understanding was Blunt was simply an amnesty for the collection of knives. Has it actually moved on from that to be proactive? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): Blunt is an overt and covert tactic that is used. It is intelligence lead, it is deployed each day into a number of areas across the MPS based on the aim of reducing, deterring, preventing violence. So it can be flexed on the basis of a significant incident has happened and deploy into that area because of rising tensions. It could be deployed and an incident has not happened but our community intelligence or police intelligence says that two gangs will converse together in this particular area. Blunt could be put into that area where there are, therefore, no stops, no searches but a high visibility patrol that prevents that disorder that could have been a murder etc. So, it is difficult to asses those sort of tactics but other ways of assessing Blunt.
Page 32 Richard Barnbrook (AM): Could that not simply, by having no direct contact with those people but just being observable and high profile, simply shift that problem from one location to -- John Biggs (Chairman): I think we are straying into operational matters and we are looking at performance issues. My question would be, from a performance point of view, that we have an upward trend in serious acquisitive crime at present. Do you anticipate that the range of initiatives you are deploying will stop or reverse that? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): The deployment of the Blunt asset is specifically around violence. However, violence is driven often by robberies and with the acquisitive crime piece we have seen a rise in knife enabled robberies. Yes, there is a direct correlation between the reduction of serious acquisitive crime and the deployment of asset like Blunt and the work that the current intelligence units are doing in order to look at their priority locations to deploy there asset to. John Biggs (Chairman): The corporate target for 2010/11 was a 3.2% reduction in serious acquisitive crime which includes a range of different headings and it looks as if we are going to finish the year with roughly a 1% increase so that is corporately a concern. In your areas of responsibility do you see that increase being checked or reserved? Det Ch. Supt. Mick McNally (Territorial Policing, MPS): Well, again the deployment of the asset has to be - when I am talking about asset I am talking about our staff in individual boroughs - against the temporal analysis for the intelligence units. That is very much based on the risk, the priority locations and then those two pieces I mentioned earlier: the repeat victims, repeat offenders, in order to deal with the specific risk piece. Underpinning all of that is a problem solving process that would look at volume crime. So that volume crime may well be driven by TNO crime, shoplifting and in serious acquisitive crime they would be looking at the motor vehicle crime specific lead group, the burglary group and the robbery group. So their tactics would be to deploy in order to reduce in their individual boroughs. John Biggs (Chairman): Fine. Can I thank you very much for those replies. Are there any further questions? Richard Tracey (AM): There is just one which is not related to this particular set of questions that we have been putting to you. There was a report in the press the other day from a new gentleman that had been taken on by the MPS to deal with procurement and he was suggesting that were considerable extra savings that could be made in procurement. Are you familiar with the press report? Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): I am not familiar with the press report. I assume the gentleman is Lee Tribe? Richard Tracey (AM): Yes, that is the gentlemen. Nick Rogers (Director of Finance Services, MPS): So, I am familiar with the gentleman and what he has been saying internally so I can probably reply. Lee has
Page 33 come to us to head up the procurement team. I think what we have been saying recently was that we had an issue around compliance which we have been focused on as the MPA for 2010/11 so that we now have all our major contracts compliant. We are probably one of the few authorities in the country that could say so or any other local authority, so we have done some work on that. However, now with the cuts coming our focus is switching to having had that control now to, as Lee says, focus more on, as those come up for renewal, how we save money around those. I think we are in a very strong position to focus on those and certainly those are factored into some of budget plans that we are aiming to help deliver some CSR saving, again the focus on inanimate and spend type items. Richard Tracey (AM): Good. Thank you. John Biggs (Chairman): If there are no further questions can we thank you very much for your answers. Thank you.
Page 34 Agenda Item 4
Subject: Summary List of Actions Report to: Budget Monitoring Sub -Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 19 July 2011 This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Sub-Committee. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Sub-Committee notes the completed and outstanding actions arising from the previous meetings of the Sub-Committee, as listed below.
Action Arising from the Meeting of 9 February 2011 Agenda Topic Status Person Item
4. Quarter 2, 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Response attached Chief Finance Report as Appendix 1 . Officer, Transport for London That the Sub-Committee be provided with the following: • Of the £970 million underspend for Quarter 3, the Sub-Committee to receive a breakdown of this into one-off and ongoing savings; and • Further information about the annual cost of support staff at TfL, and clarification of whether the savings through the London Underground Support Services Review will be included in the anticipated 20 per cent support staff savings from Project Horizon.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 35
4. Quarter 2, 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Response attached Assistant Director Report as Appendix 2. - Economic and Business Policy, Further information to be provided on the long- GLA term plans for the future of the overseas LDA offices. Action Arising from the Meeting of 14 April 2011 Agenda Topic Status Person Item
4. Quarter 3 , 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Response attached Assistant Director, Report as Appendix 3. Planning, GLA. That the Chairman of the Sub-Committee write to the Assistant Director, Planning, asking for an update on the number of projects in the Planning team that had been flagged as red or amber and the planned response. 4. Quarter 3 , 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Response attached Acting Director of Report as Appendix 4. Finance and Contractual Members requested a copy of the letter sent from Services, LFEPA the Fire Commissioner to LFEPA Members giving assurances on the access and availability of the fleet in the event of the collapse of AssetCo. 5. Mayor’s Decision Lists: 13 January 2011 - 9 Response attached Assistant Director March 2011 as Appendix 5. of Finance, GLA. The Assistant Director of Finance was asked to supply the Sub-Committee with further information on the reasons why part 2 of the report on Mayoral Decision 765 was confidential under the Freedom of Information Act. 5. Mayor’s Decision Lists: 13 January 2011 - 9 In progress. Mayor’s Offic e. March 2011 That the Chairman of the Sub-Committee write to the Mayor to raise the issue of the increasing number of instances where the reasons for confidential information on Mayoral Decision reports were not being sufficiently explained.
Page 36
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Letter from the Chief Finance Officer, Transport for London dated 6 April 2011 Appendix 2 – Letter from Assistant Director, Government and International Relations dated 12 April 2011 Appendix 3 – Letter from Assistant Director, Planning dated 25 May 2011 Appendix 4 – Copy of letter sent from the Fire Commissioner dated 22 March 2011 Appendix 5 – Letter sent from Assistant Director, Finance to Richard Barnbrook AM dated 15 April 2011 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Minutes of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee on 9 February 2011 and 14 April 2011 Contact Officer: Matt Bailey Telephone: 020 7983 4 014 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Appendix 1
Page 39 Page 40 Appendix 2
Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 Appendix 3
Page 43 Page 44 Appendix 4
Briefing note
22 March 2011
Subject AssetCo
Brief for All Members of the Authority
Author Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning
In my briefing note of 4 March I informed you that AssetCo, through its broker Arden Partners, had announced a fully underwritten Private Placing to raise £16,000,000 by the issue of 160,000,000 new ordinary Shares at 10 pence per Ordinary Share. As is normal, the placing was conditional upon receiving shareholder approval from the company's existing shareholders. On Friday of last week they announced that they still needed further working capital in addition to that £16m. They had therefore sought and received support from their major shareholders of further support up to an additional £10m.
You will be aware from recent media reports that investors had been expected to approve the share placing on Monday morning. Following reports that Mr Shannon had sought to withdraw his undertaking to vote his shares in favour of the Private Placing as part of the refinancing of AssetCo, the company has confirmed that an injunction was obtained yesterday preventing him from doing so. The shareholders met this morning and have approved the placing.
The shares that will raise these funds will now be admitted for trading and the funds will be transferred to Asset Co over the next few days. This will allow the payment of AssetCo's debt to HMRC.
Throughout this process LFEPA has been in contact with the Company’s Bank, who have funded the PFI Contract. The Bank continues to work with LFEPA and AssetCo and as previously stated the continuity of availability of fire engines and equipment to LFEPA is assured.
Ron Dobson Commissioner
Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Appendix 5
Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 Agenda Item 5
Subject: Quarter 4, 2010 -11 GLA Group Monitoring Report Report to: Budget Monitoring Sub -Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Resources Date: 19 July 2011 This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out th e individual monitoring reports submitted by the GLA group on its finance and performance issues for the fourth quarter of 2010-11 (ie 1 January – 31 March 2011), including details of when and to which body the reports were submitted. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Sub-Committee notes the content of this report as background to putting questions to representatives from Transport for London (TfL), the London Development Agency (LDA) and the Greater London Authority (GLA).
3. Background 3.1 The monitoring reports submitted by the GLA group on finance and performance for the fourth quarter of 2010-11 are set out as follows: - Appendix 1 - GLA Monitoring Report Quarter 4, 2010-11 (pages 51 to 78). - Appendix 2 - LDA Corporate Performance Report Month 12, submitted to the LDA’s Audit Risk and Performance Committee on 23 May 2011 (pages 79 to 96. - Appendix 3 - London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) End of year financial and service monitoring, 2010/11, submitted to the LFEPA Finance and Personnel Committee on 11 July 2011 (pages 97 to 171). - Appendix 4 - Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) Commissioner’s Report, submitted to the MPA’s full authority meeting on 30 June 2011 (pages 173 to 181). - Appendix 5 - TfL Operational and Financial Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2010/11, submitted to the TfL Board on 29 June 2011 (pages 183 to 204). City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 49
4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 Issues arising are dealt with in the attached reports. 5. Legal Implications 5.1 There are no direct legal implications arising from the report.
6. Financial Implications 6.1 Financial issues are integral to the report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – GLA Group Monitoring Report, Quarter 4, 2010-11 Appendix 2 – LDA Corporate Performance Report Month 12 Appendix 3 – LFEPA End of year financial and service monitoring, 2010/11 Appendix 4 – MPA Commissioner’s Report Appendix 5 – TfL Operational and Financial Performance Report Fourth Quarter 2010/11 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Matt Bailey Telephone: 020 7983 4 014 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 50 Appendix 1 GLA Monitoring Report Quarter 4, 2010-11
Page 51 Section 2 Greater London Authority
2 Greater London Authority
Introduction and background 2.1 This report sets out key finance and performance data for the GLA for the fourth quarter of 2010- 11. Financial Data Overview of financial performance 2.2 At quarter 4 of the 2010-11 financial year, there was a net underspend of £3.020m against the approved budget requirement of £140.4m. The underspend reduced to £0.566m, following the decision of the Executive Director of Resources to agree to £2.454m of carry forwards under the delegated authority afforded to him on this matter and as approved by DD485. A breakdown of carry forwards by Directorate as well as an objective and subjective analysis is shown below. Figure 2.1 Directorate Carry Forwards to 2011-12
Carry Forward Directorate £000 Communities & Intelligence 166 London 2012 488 External Affairs 485 Development & Environment 1,206 Resources 98 Assembly 11 Total 2,454 Financial Commentary – Objective Analysis 2.3 This section focuses on the net variances across the GLA’s Directorates. Figure 2.2 Objective analysis of the GLA 2010-11 Original Revised Net Budget Budget Expenditure Variance 2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 Directorate £000 £000 £000 £000 Chief Exec/Elections 2,493 2,086 1,918 (168) Mayor’s Office 3,464 3,464 3,356 (108) Resources 31,386 31,474 30,911 (563) Contributions to/from reserves 9,381 6,401 7,933 1,532 London 2012 Co-ordination 61,501 61,507 60,929 (578) Development & Environment 8,181 9,556 8,604 (952) External Affairs 6,699 7,007 6,144 (863) Communities & Intelligence 8,695 10,280 9,619 (661) Assembly & Secretariat 8,600 8,625 7,966 (659) Total 140,400 140,400 137,380 (3,020)
Page 52 Chief Executive’s Office and Elections 2.4 The quarter 4 outturn position shows an underspend of £0.168m. This comprises an overspend of £0.299m against the Chief Executive’s Office and an underspend of £0.467m against Elections. 2.5 The Chief Executive’s Office overspend of £0.299m is largely due to staffing costs, in relation to the post of Chief Executive being made redundant. 2.6 The Elections underspend of £0.467m is due mainly to particular expenditure items, most notably in relation to E-counting costs, having been expected to be incurred in 2010/11 but which will now be incurred in 2011/12. Mayor’s Office 2.7 The underspend of £0.108m is mainly made up of: • An underspend of £0.088m against staff costs, including an underspend of £0.044m against staff pay due to a combination of staff vacancies and payments being made in some instances to staff who are on pay grades lower than the mid-point (which is the basis for budget setting) with the remainder of the variance being a combination of underspends against travel and training. • A net underspend against supplies and services of £0.022 largely within the Mayoral events budget. Resources 2.8 An underspend of £0.563m is evident at the end of quarter 4, which largely consists of the following offsetting items: • £0.383m underspend within Human Resources due mainly to staff pay costs being below budget by £0.148m, largely due to the fact that industrial work placements started mid-year rather than in April, reduced expenditure on recruitment due to subdued recruitment activity has resulted in an underspend of £0.194m and a training underspend of £0.040m due to the learning and development budget not being fully utilised. Other minor, largely offsetting, over and underspends are apparent in relation to staff welfare benefit costs. £0.098m of the Human Resources underspend has been carried forward to 2011/12 to facilitate work on the work placement programme. • £0.315m overspend within Facilities & Squares Management. The major areas of overspend, relate to staff pay, premises as well as income collected falling short of budget. The £0.138m staff pay overspend is due to a full establishment being maintained throughout the year thus meaning that the vacancy factor applied to budgets has not been attained. The £0.206m premises overspend comprises £0.355m in relation to London Squares repairs and fixtures and fittings costs brought about following protest demonstrations; this sum is offset in part by an underspend of £0.149m against accommodation, reflecting savings made from improved energy performance and renegotiating energy tariffs. The £0.107m overspend apparent from income collection falling short of budget, relates to City Hall rental income not meeting expectations. These overspends are offset by underspends across supplies and services of £0.147m, comprising sums in relation to printing, stationery and consumables, external services, postage and telephones and porter costs. • £0.083m overspend within Technology Group due mainly to IT equipment costs in relation to the results of a Microsoft licence audit and costs associated with an unforeseen increase in demand for flexible working which has necessitated software and hardware purchases.
Page 53 Section 2 Greater London Authority
• £0.307m overspend in relation to Finance and the Executive Director of Resources office. The majority of this overspend relates to staff pay; £0.106m relates to the Executive Director’s Office the result of devolution staff costs being held here. An additional £0.193m relates to Finance with £0.082m reflecting a full establishment being maintained meaning the vacancy target was not met and there were staff costs attached to shared services work totalling £0.074m. There is also an overspend against premises costs of £0.042m relating to the Business Improvement District levy. These overspends are offset in part by a £0.027m income surplus against budget in relation to treasury income receipts. • £0.883m slippage of capital expenditure from 2010/11 to 2011/12. Contributions to/from reserves 2.9 The Authority’s general reserves totalled £3.943m at 31 March 2010 and earmarked reserves totalled £27.186m, of which £11.072m relates to Elections. 2.10 Under delegation the Executive Director of Resources has approved the transfers to and from reserves shown in figure 2.3 to be put into place, based on an assessment of needs and risks to ensure that reserves are maintained at an appropriate level. This will help ensure that the Authority’s financial standing remains sound and supports the achievement of longer- term service objectives. Figure 2.3 Earmarked reserves Balance at Transfers Transfers Balance at 31 March In Out 31 March 2010 2010/11 2010/11 2011 Earmarked Reserves £000 £000 £000 £000 4th Plinth (144) 0 144 0 Accommodation, Asset Replacement and Adaptation (5,521) (457) 371 (5,607) Assembly Development & Resettlement (731) 0 0 (731) Directorates (1,399) (49) 1,448 0 GLA Economics (258) 0 258 0 Election (11,072) (5,000) 788 (15,284) Mayoral Resettlement (7) (70) 0 (77) GLA Development (405) (331) 633 (103) Grants and Funding (310) 0 163 (147) Indemnities (170) 0 170 0 Legal Fees (704) (415) 418 (701) London Squares Works (460) (977) 620 (817) Long Term Absence 0 (145) 18 (127) New Initiatives (150) 0 150 0 Olympics (473) (250) 349 (374) Olympics - City Operations (1,000) 0 473 (527) Professional Witnesses (333) 0 333 0 Self Insurance Fund (54) (86) 0 (140) Planning smoothing (954) 0 159 (795) Precept Resilience (2,200) (5,700) 0 (7,900) Environment Drainage plans (820) (2,170) 820 (2,170) London Analysis Support Site (21) 0 21 0
Page 54 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Agreed carry forwards from 2010-11 to 2011-12 - (2,454) - (2,454) Total Earmarked Reserves (27,186) (18,104) 7,336 (37,954) 2.11 In addition to the proposed transfers to and from reserves shown in figure 2.3, note should be made of the fact that £10.575m of income in advance will also be transferred to reserves, in line with current accounting practice. This transfer relates to grants received with no repayment conditions but expenditure has not yet been incurred on the project or initiative for which the grant was paid. London 2012 Co-ordination 2.12 An underspend of £0.578m is evident against budget, £0.488m of which is to be carried forward to 2011/12 to fund activities that have slipped from 2010/11. The components of the underspend for the year are: • £0.340m against City Operations, largely in relation to Olympics Look and Feel work that will be completed in 2011/12, £0.226m budget is to be carried forward; the remainder of the underspend is associated with staffing expenditure due to later than expected recruitment (£0.048m of which is to be carried forward to 2011/12) in addition to Programme budget not being fully utilised in year (£0.039m of which is to be carried forward to 2011/12). • Olympic funding agreement expenditure slipping into 2011/12 - £0.175m • £0.063m against Legacy and Games Delivery, due to a combination of minor underspends against pay and supplies and services budgets. Development & Environment 2.13 An underspend of £0.952m is evident, the sum total of which will be carried forward to 2011/12, to cover expenditure due in 2011/12 where base budget is not deemed available. The directorate underspend mainly consists of the following: • An underspend of £0.839m against Transport and Environment, comprising slippage of Trees and Parks expenditure (£0.606m), an underspend of £0.090m in relation to C40 work due to the receipt of income relating to expenditure incurred in previous years, Programme budgets have underspent by £0.245m due to slippage of £0.180m on the LAEI programme, with the balance made up of minor underspends across several other work programmes. These underspends are offset in part by an overspend against staff pay. • An underspend of £0.289m against Planning due to a Programme budget underspend of £0.508m due largely to slippage of Examination in Public inspectorate costs, contributing to an underspend of £0.399m, an underspend of £0.052m is apparent in relation to the Housing element of the Planning Programme; the remainder of the Programme underspend (£0.057m) is a combination of minor sums. The Programme underspend is offset in part by overspends against Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea work (£0.143m) – due to the fact that expenditure was expected to be covered by external sources, which have yet to come to fruition – and the balancing overspend amount of £0.076m is made of several minor components. • An overspend of £0.080m within the Director’s Office due largely to a full complement of staff causing budgets to be exceeded given the vacancy rate that is applied to pay budgets and due to the fact that the income budget relating to publications has not been met – this income budget is to be reviewed as part of the forthcoming budget setting process. • An overspend of £0.096m relating to Housing, which largely relates to staffing expenditure.
Page 55 External Affairs 2.14 An underspend of £0.863m is apparent, £0.485m of which is to be carried forward to 2011/12. The underspend mainly consists of the following areas of note • An underspend of £0.608m against the London Engagement budget, the main components of which are underspends relating to Events (£0.337m) staffing vacancies and Programme slippage and Marketing and the Visitor Centre (£0.362) due to a combination of staffing vacancies, slippage into 2011/12 and Recycle for London income exceeding budget. Web and Sponsorship team overspends relating to staff pay represent the balancing items to the £0.608m underspend. • An underspend of £0.129m against Community Relations, of which, £0.099m relates to slippage of London Schools and the Black Child and Moving On expenditure, the remaining underspend relates to unutilised supplies and services budget across the unit. • An underspend of £0.116m relating to Government Relations. The main component of this underspend, £0.078m, is to be carried forward to 2011/12 to cover London House project costs. The balancing items largely relate to staffing underspends across the unit. Communities & Intelligence 2.15 An underspend of £0.661m is evident (of which, £0.166m is to be carried forward to 2011/12), which consists, largely, of the following variances: • An overspend of £0.153m against Health and Communities due mainly to staffing costs across a number of teams causing budgets to be exceeded given the vacancy rate that is applied to pay budgets. • An underspend of £0.036m against Economics and Business Policy, largely relating to Programme budgets albeit offset in part by staffing overspends. • An underspend of £0.496m against Community Safety due to delayed recruitment to Time for Action and Crime Policy posts and forecast underspends within the Programme budget due to reduced requirements relating to Earn Your Travel Back and the Crime Policy and Violence Against Women projects in addition to Rape Crisis Centre slippage. • An underspend of £0.275m against the Intelligence unit, the main component of which is an underspend against the GLA Economics budget of £0.297m largely as a result of less consultancy work being required by the steering board than originally envisaged. There are minor over and underspends across the remainder of the unit that cause a net reduction to the GLA Economics underspend to produce the unit’s outturn position. Assembly & Secretariat 2.16 An underspend of £0.659m is the year-end position evident. There are various relatively minor over and underspends across the directorate but the main element within the directorate is an underspend of £0.509m within Member Support. This is made up of the following: • Conservative group underspend of £0.398m due to staff vacancies and an unallocated amount from their proportion of the overall Member Support Budget. This unallocated amount is included in the Assembly savings for 2011/12. • The remainder of the underspend consists of a forecast of £0.111m across other party groups. Financial Commentary – Subjective Analysis 2.17 This section details those items that contribute to net under and overspends across Directorates.
Page 56 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Figure 2.4 GLA Subjective Analysis (Quarter 4) Expenditure/ Original Revised Income to Budget Budget date Variance 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 £000 £000 £000 £000 Staff Costs Pay 34,052 36,082 36,620 538 Travel and subsistence 254 275 188 (87) Training 608 572 404 (168) Recruitment 337 341 169 (172) Other non -pay staff costs 103 282 702 420 35,354 37 ,552 38,082 530 Premises Costs Accommodation 8,872 9,319 9,262 (57) Repairs and maintenance 1,813 1,938 2,114 176 Fixtures, fittings, Furn and Equip 151 203 296 93 Other Premises Costs 44 0 0 0 10,880 11,460 11,672 212 Supplie s and Services Catering 249 297 309 12 Printing 460 548 345 (203) Stationery and Consumables 1,204 297 132 (165) External Services 15,135 25,389 23,267 (2,122) Postage and Telephones 492 513 441 (72) IT Equipment 649 1,195 1,219 24 Other Supplies and Services Costs 17,754 18,273 14,628 (3,645) Contingency 444 0 0 0 36,387 46,512 40,341 (6,171) Olympic Funding Agreement 59,600 59,600 59,199 (401) Crossrail 219,000 219,000 226,604 7,604 Capital Financed by Revenue a nd Reserves 2,786 3,048 2,164 (884) Total Expenditure 364,007 377,172 378,062 890 Income Sales, Fees and Charges (1,602 ) (1,683) (1,978) (295) Rental Income (440 ) (440) (326) 114 Specific Grants 0 (2,380) (2,380) 0 Other Income (10, 846 ) (18,570) (16,200) 2,370 (12,888) (23,073) (20,885) 2,188 Crossrail Income (219,000 ) (219,000) (226,604) (7,604) Interest Receivable (1,100 ) (1,100) (1,127) (27) Total Income (232,988) (243,173) (248,616) (5,443) Net Cost of Services 131, 019 133,999 129,447 (4,552) Contribution to (from) General Fund 0 (382) (382) 0 Contribution to Reserves 12,421 14,421 15,650 1,229 Contribution from Reserves (3,040 ) (7,638) (7,335) 303 Appropriations 0 0 0 0 Budget Requirements 140, 400 140,400 137,380 (3,020)
Page 57 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Staff costs – overspend of £0.530m 2.18 The staff costs position comprises a £0.538m overspend against pay and a £0.420m overspend against non-pay staff costs, offset by underspends of £0.087m against travel & subsistence, £0.168m against training and £0.172m against recruitment. Staff pay budgets are set at the mid- point of grades and are top-sliced to a certain degree in accordance with expected turnover/vacancy periods throughout the organisation. Variances from budget may therefore be apparent if staff are, on average, being paid above the mid-point of their respective grades and/or if a full complement of staff is maintained for the year. 2.19 The overspend on pay of £0.538m is largely made up of the following: • Development & Environment - £0.494m overspend due to the fact that an almost full complement of staff has been maintained for the year plus a number of officers were being paid at the top of their grade, in addition to the fact that additional budget requirement has been identified, which has been incorporated into the budget for 2011/12. • Resources - £0.284m overspend mainly due to the combination of devolution project staffing costs having been incurred and both the Finance and IT units incurring costs above budget due to a full complement of staff with a number of staff also being paid at higher grade points than the mid-point budget position. These overspends are offset, in part, by an underspend within the HR unit due to a number of work placement staff beginning mid-year and staff vacancies. • Assembly & Secretariat - £0.066m underspend, there are various minor over and underspends forecast across the Directorate with a net underspend being the result. • London 2012 Co-ordination - £0.121 underspend due to delayed recruitment to City Operations posts and staff vacancies in the Legacy and Games Delivery unit. • Minor underspends and partially offsetting overspends across the Mayor’s Office, Communities and Intelligence, External Affairs and the Chief Executive Office make up the balance. 2.20 The £0.420m overspend against non-pay staff costs is the result of redundancy and pension augmentation costs across the organisation during 2010/11. 2.21 The travel and subsistence underspend of £0.087m is due to lower than anticipated levels of related spend across the majority of the organisation. 2.22 The training underspend of £0.168m is also the result of £0.420m overspend against non-pay staff costs. The training budget for 2011/12 was reduced in comparison to 2010/11 as part of the savings proposed in the annual budget setting process. 2.23 The recruitment underspend of £0.172m reflects reduced turnover across the organisation. Premises costs – overspend of £0.212m 2.24 The overspend on premises costs mainly relates to expenditure incurred on Trafalgar and Parliament squares, to a large extent in relation to repairs/maintenance following protest demonstrations. There is also an overspend against premises costs relating to the Business Improvement District levy. These overspends are offset, in part, by savings made from improved energy performance and renegotiated energy tariffs.
Page 58 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Supplies & Services – underspend of £6.171m 2.25 The major elements making up the underspend are as follows: • Assembly & Secretariat - £0.474m underspend, mainly relating to unallocated amounts available to the Conservative group with other underspends across the Directorate making up the balance. • External Affairs - £0.762m underspend, approximately 60% of which is to be carried forward to 2011/12 due to project slippage. The main causes of the underspend relate to the programme budgets for London Engagement, Community and International Relations. Additionally, there is a net underspend of £0.215m within State of London Debate, eMarketing and the Web Team. • Development & Environment - £2.787m underspend, approximately 40% of which is to be carried forward to 2011/12. The main areas of underspend relate to Planning, due to a Programme budget underspend of £0.508m due largely to slippage of Examination in Public inspectorate costs; Environment programmes, where an underspend of £0.245m is apparent, largely relating to project slippage regarding atmospheric emissions work; Street Trees and Priority Parks slippage of £0.606m; Recycle for London (which is externally funded and is similarly reflected as a variance against income) has underspent by £0.655m due to various delays; the congestion charge adjudication service (also externally funded) accounts for another £0.647m due to a lower number of appeals; the balance of the underspend is made up of relatively minor amounts across a number of different areas. • Communities & Intelligence - £1.344m underspend, partly relating to underspends within the Programme budgets, which is due mainly to reduced requirements relating to Earn Your Travel Back, the Crime Policy and Violence Against Women projects and delays to Rape Crisis Centre activities within Community Safety (£0.394m) as well as within the Economic and Business Policy programme (£0.108m). Non-programme underspends contribute to the underspend also, mainly due to reduced activity regarding GLA Economics activity in-year (£0.417m), Well London (£0.163m), London Health Commission (£0.064m), 4 th Plinth (£0.100m), London Cultural Strategy Group (£0.078m) – the non-programme elements listed are largely reflected in correspondingly reduced income levels. • Chief Executive’s Office – £0.103m overspend, made up largely of elections costs slipping to 2011/12 (£0.447m), offset by consultancy costs for the 101 single telephone number project totalling £0.550m, that was funded by income. • London 2012 Co-ordination - £0.774m underspend, due largely to expenditure (funded externally) in relation to the London Media Centre slipping in to 2011/12. • Resources – £0.111m underspend, relating to savings made across Human Resources, Squares and Facilities Management and Financial Services activities. Income – overachievement of £5.443m 2.26 The main reasons for this overachievement of income can be summarised as follows: • £7.604m overachievement relates to Crossrail income (and is mirrored by an expenditure overspend of the same sum) – the income and expenditure variances have arisen due to revised interest payments for the year (funded by BRS) as a result of the decision of the GLA to borrow earlier in the year to take advantage of lower PWLB borrowing rates. This cost attracted
Page 59 Section 2 Greater London Authority
additional costs in 2010-11, but will result in significant savings long term in interest costs over the lifetime of the borrowing (thus reducing the cost to BRS ratepayers over time). • Communities and Intelligence - £0.723m underachievement, due to the areas noted in paragraph 2.25, offset in part by additional income having been received in relation to sponsorship of the Big Dance project. • Development and Environment - £1.315m underachievement, largely due to Recycle for London having underspent by £0.655m due to various delays, meaning that income levels in-year have been similarly reduced, the congestion charge adjudication service accounts for another £0.647m due to a lower number of appeals, the income budget of £0.080m relating to publications has not been met. Pre-application income has exceeded budget however, reducing the underachievement somewhat. • London 2012 Co-ordination - £0.724m underachievement due largely to income (and the related expenditure) in relation to the London Media Centre slipping in to 2011/12. • Resources - £0.088m underachievement, which mainly relates to income from City Hall room lettings falling short of expectations. • There is also income in excess of budget of £0.550m against the Chief Executive’s Office in relation to the 101 single telephone number for London project, covering mainly supplies and services costs; External Affairs income figure is £0.106m greater than budget which relates to the marketing element of Recycle for London. Programme budgets – forecast underspend of £0.425m 2.27 Figure 2.5 below illustrates the Programme budget position at the end of quarter 4. 2.28 The main forecast variances contained within the table are summarised as follows: • Community Safety underspend of £0.414m against budget due to reduced requirements relating to Earn Your Travel Back, the Crime Policy and Violence Against Women projects and delays to Rape Crisis Centre activities, causing expenditure to slip to 2011/12. • Economic & Business Policy underspend of £0.108m due largely to reduced expenditure on the Mayor’s Employment & Skills Programme – a concentration of resources on activities relating to the forthcoming winding up of the GLA has impacted on the outturn position. • The London Engagement underspend of £0.255m is almost entirely related to slippage of expenditure in relation to several Events. • The £0.109m Community Relations underspend relates to London Schools and the Black Child and Moving On expenditure slipping to 2011/12 also. • The £0.079m International programme underspend relates to London House expenditure that will be incurred in 2011/12. • The underspends apparent against the London 2012 Co-ordination programme budgets is largely due to budget being earmarked for staffing expenditure and a number of posts being vacant during the year. • Planning underspend of £0.508m is largely due to slippage of Examination in Public inspectorate costs, contributing to an underspend of £0.399m, an underspend of £0.052m is apparent in
Page 60 Section 2 Greater London Authority
relation to the Housing element of the Planning Programme; the remainder of the Programme underspend (£0.057m) is a combination of minor sums. • Environment underspend of £0.245m is mainly in relation to project slippage regarding atmospheric emissions work as well relatively minor underspends against various other projects including climate change partnership, London hydrogen partnership and mitigation and energy.
Figure 2.5 GLA Programme Budget Spend (Quarter 4) Directorate Programme Area Original Revised Net Variance Budget Budget Expenditure £000 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 £000 £000 £000 £000 Chief Executive Working for London 24 24 5 (19) 24 24 5 (19) Resources GLA placements 150 150 128 (22) 150 150 128 (22) Communties & Intelligence Children & Young People 157 252 236 (16) Diversity & Social Policy 106 145 129 (16) Sustainable Development 57 63 60 (3) Health 111 141 148 7 Culture Strategy 224 432 412 (20) Community Safety 2,040 1,706 1,292 (414) Consultation 156 156 156 0 Economic and Business Policy 202 162 54 (108) 3,053 3,057 2,487 (570) External Affairs London Engagement 1,525 1,775 1,520 (255) Community Relations 165 193 84 (109) Government & Parliamentary Relations 46 13 13 0 International Relations 67 100 21 (79) 1,803 2,081 1,638 (443) London 2012 Co-ordination City Operations 956 956 850 (106) Legacy & Games Delivery 170 176 151 (25) 1,126 1,132 1,001 (131) Development & Environment Planning 1,115 1,193 685 (508) Housing and Homelessness 90 57 48 (9) Environment 702 798 553 (245) 1,907 2,048 1,286 (762) Total 8,063 8,492 6,545 (1,947)
Page 61 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Capital Budget 2.29 The Mayor approved the 2010-11 capital budget of £1,009.616m. The summary below shows the changes to the capital budget as at quarter 4, which totals £1,011.087m, £1,002.00m of which relates to the GLA’s contribution to the Crossrail project financed from the new 2p business rate supplement. The GLA has already borrowed £800m in 2010-11 in line with the programmed amount agreed for the year in the Crossrail Sponsor Funding Agreement between TfL and Department for Transport. The balance of £202m (within the £1,002m sum) equates to a budgeted direct contribution towards the Crossrail project as set out in the Crossrail BRS Final prospectus published in January 2010. The GLA has been advised by London boroughs that they expect to collect around £225m through the business rate supplement in 2010-11. The BRS is used to fund the direct contribution and the interest on the GLA's borrowing - and will be used to fund the eventual repayment of the borrowing. Figure 2.6 GLA Capital Budget Movements in 2010-11 Capital Budget Movement from April 2010 £000 Original Approved Capital Budget 1,009,616 2009/10 Capital Budget Project revenue funded 575 under spend b/f 2009/10 Capital Budget Project external funding b/f 3,060 Transfer of Ass embly capital budget to revenue (25) Transfer of LCIS, Visitor Centre and Technology Group (139) capital budgets to revenue Reclassification of Sports capital budget as revenue (2,000) Revised Capital Budget 1,011,087 2.30 Slippage of £8.055m is apparent against the capital programme; this figure comprises: • £3.644m budget for Crossrail payments to TFL is to be re-profiled to 2011/12. As noted above the capital element of this scheme is funded by BRS supplement and prudential borrowing. • £2.590m budget for the Trees and Parks programme is to be re-profiled to 2011/12. The capital element of this programme is externally funded and the variance against budget in 2010/11 is to be carried forward to 2011/12 in line with expenditure. • £0.936m slippage against the Sporting Future for London project. Again, this is externally funded and the profiling of expenditure will see funds transferred to 2011/12 in line with expenditure. • £0.494m Technology group funding will be transferred to 2011/12 due, largely, to slippage on the data replication project. • £0.231m City Hall infrastructure funding will be transferred to 2011/12 due to slippage on works to furniture, security CCTV, broadcast equipment, threshold mats, lifts, energy efficiency and acoustics. • £0.160m Website Development budget will also be transferred to 2011/12 due to slippage from 2010/11.
Page 62 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Olympic Funding Agreement 2.31 The Olympic Funding Agreement allocation has been reviewed during the course of 2010/11 and alterations made to the payment profile to the ODA – a reduced sum has been agreed to be paid to the ODA with a sum to be retained by the GLA for expenditure to be incurred directly. The underspend apparent at year end of £0.401m represents slippage of ODA payments brought about during the review period and slippage of expenditure in relation to Look and Feel project work and borough disbursements. Performance 2.32 In this section performance is reported against Strategic Plan deliverables, on an exception basis, and corporate health indicators. 2.33 Progress against Strategic Plan deliverables The Strategic Plan contains over 100 deliverables (e.g. strategies, plans, programmes and projects). The GLA uses a `traffic light’ (RAG) system to indicate the status of each deliverable: • green indicates the project is progressing to plan and scheduled to deliver without any significant delay; • amber indicates the project has encountered some issues which could affect the delivery of overall benefits within the agreed time and resources; and • a red rating means at least one key milestone has been or will be missed which will have a significant impact on delivery of overall benefits (the cause of which may be for a number of reasons, not all of which the GLA has control over). 2.34 There were 88 GLA deliverables monitored in 2010-11. Of these 88 deliverables, 67 were reported on in Q4 and 45 were green, 20 were amber and 2 were red. The remaining 21 deliverables came to a close earlier in the year and of these, 20 were completed (green) and 1 was not pursued (red). The breakdown of deliverables by RAG status is shown in the figure below. The GLA has agreed a refreshed suite of deliverables for 2011-12, and they will replace the 2010-11 set for reporting purposes from the quarter one report. Figure 2.7: Performance against 2010-11 Deliverables Red (3 of 88) 3% Amber (20 of 88) 23%
Green (65 of 88) 74% Page 63 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 below provide more detail on those deliverables rated red or amber. Figure 2.8: Red Q4 deliverables Title Description of deliverable Key milestones GLA lead - Comments team Competiti ve London London Film The Events for London Team delivers This is an Events for London milestone London It was decided that London Film Day would Day and supports a programme of world- that is being monitored as a separate Engagement not take place after a review of the class events to promote London deliverable. events/culture programme priorities and culturally, socially and economically. budget considerations. A Mayoral Directive went to LDA last month transferring £1.3m from LDA to GLA to fund Film London over 2011-12. Cultural The Cultural Campaign work • Story of London Summer - Q2 London Story of London was successfully delivered, Page 64 Campaigns programme objective is to work with a • East - Q4 Engagement taking place from 1 – 10 October 2010. wide range of partners and agencies to create and deliver campaigns that meet It was decided that East festival would not Mayoral policies and objectives, and take place after a review of the benefit London’s cultural sector. These events/culture programme priorities and are targeted at both Londoners and budget considerations. visitors to London. There are two main elements of the Cultural Campaigns work, Story of London and East. Figure 2.9: Amber Q4 deliverables Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team Competitive London Economic Work to revise and implement the • Publication of the final EDS - Q1 Economic & The final EDS was published in May 2010. Development Mayor’s Economic Development • Development of detailed Business Strategy Strategy (EDS). implementation strategies - Q2 Policy The implementation plan was delayed due to Now Q1/Q2 2011/12 changing governance arrangements, • Review outputs and outcomes and pertaining to the devolution of functions to review (and where necessary revise) the GLA, and funding uncertainty. detailed implementation strategies - Now that economic development funding Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team Q4 has been confirmed (March 2011), the This milestone has been replaced with: Implementation Plan is being revised, • Publication of EDS snapshot baseline working with partners in the GLA group and indicator report – Q4 beyond. This plan will provide the template for guiding the Mayor's priorities for economic development over the coming year and will be the key reference point for the Economic Business Policy Unit. Promotion of To take forward promotion • Launch of the London Brand - Q1 Economic & London & Partners (L&P), the new single London coordination through the Promote • Complete review of organisational Business promotional agency for London, was London Council. The overall aim of the structures - Q2 Policy officially launched on 1 April 2011. L&P is Page 65 council is to advise the Mayor on all • Development of overall promotion a private company, commercially driven, to aspects of the promotion of London in strategy - Q2 champion London as the best big city on order to maximise benefits to London’s • Development of new contracts and earth. economy and to inform his advice to promotion functions - Q3, Q4 the LDA, who will ultimately contract Now Q4 A year-one (2011/12) business plan and a these services. The role of the EBU is grant agreement have been signed between to provide the secretariat to the the GLA and L&P. The GLA is appointing a Promote London Council, to ensure permanent member of staff to manage the that the marketing of London is based client side of the contractual relationship on the best available evidence and to with L&P. act as a client for the overall promotion of London work conducted by the This deliverable has been rated amber due to various promotional agencies. ongoing work to resolve the asset and liability transfer from Visit London. City Fringe The Greater London Authority (GLA) • Draft of document - Q3 Planning It is anticipated that the consultation draft OAPF and London Boroughs of Hackney, Now Q3 2011/12 of the document will be published in Q3 Islington, Tower Hamlets and the City • Publication of document - Q3, Q4 2011/12 and the final document in Q1 Corporation have agreed that a single Now Q1 2012/13 2012/13. strategic planning document should be produced to bring together the various The delay to the original timetable was policies, requirements and ambitions caused by insufficient staff resource, with set out in existing and emerging staff being used on other projects. Staff planning documentation. This will take levels are now expected to be sufficient to Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team the form of an Opportunity Area deliver to this revised timetable. Planning Framework to the London Plan and may subsequently be endorsed by the boroughs as a material planning consideration in for plan making and planning decisions purposes. Croydon OAPF The Greater London Authority (GLA) • Agree 12 month project timetable with Planning A GLA officer has been seconded to the and London Boroughs of Croydon have Croydon - Q2 project on a 0.75 FTE basis to address discussed the possibility of producing a • Draft document - Q3, Q4 capacity constraints. It is anticipated this single strategic planning document to Now Q3 2011/12 will increase to one FTE in the first quarter bring together the various policies, • Close of public consultation - Q4 of 2011/12. requirements and ambitions set out in Now Q3 2011/12
Page 66 existing and emerging planning • Publish document - Q4 Public consultation is provisionally documentation. This will take the form Now Q4 2011/12 scheduled for Q3 2011/12. of an Opportunity Area Planning Framework to the London Plan and may subsequently be endorsed by the Boroughs as a material planning consideration in for plan making and planning decisions purposes. Upper Lee The Greater London Authority (GLA) • Completed public consultation draft - Planning Public consultation is now scheduled for Q2 Valley OAPF and London Boroughs of Haringey, Q1 2011/12 Enfield and Waltham Forrest have Now Q3 agreed that a single strategic planning • Public consultation - Q1 The delay to the original timetable was document should be produced to bring Now Q2 2011/12 caused by insufficient staff resource, with together the various policies, • Close of public consultation - Q2 staff being used on other projects. Staff requirements and ambitions set out in Now Q3 2011/12 levels are now expected to be sufficient to existing and emerging planning • Formal Publication - Q3 deliver to this revised timetable. documentation. This will take the form Now Q4 2011/12 of an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) to the London Plan and may subsequently be endorsed by the Boroughs as a material planning consideration for plan making and planning decisions purposes. Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team Vauxhall / 9 On the 11 March 2008 the previous • Close of public consultation - Q1 Planning Final publication is scheduled for Q2 Elms OAPF Mayor authorised the GLA’s • Infrastructure study to be completed - 2011/12. involvement in the Vauxhall/Nine Q1 Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area Now Q2 Planning Framework (OAPF) and to • Additional consultation on Section 106 lead on the preparation, consultation study – Q3 and publication of the framework Now Q4 document working with the GLA family • Formal Publication - Q3 and stakeholders. The first draft OAPF Now Q2 2011/12 for consultation was circulated to key stakeholders including the Boroughs, councillors and landowners in January 2009.
Page 67 Olympic The LDA is leading the process of • Draft document completed - Q2 Planning Public consultation scheduled for Q2 Supplementary masterplanning the Olympic site for Now Q1 2011/12 2011/12. Planning delivery of new homes, jobs and • Close of public consultation - Q2 Guidance infrastructure after the Games. This Now Q2 2011/12 OAPF ‘Legacy Masterplan Framework’ is • Formal Publication - Q3 being developed in close consultation Now Q3 2011/12 with the GLA, central government and local boroughs and will form the basis of formal town planning submissions from the October of 2009 onwards. Renewed London Water Strategy The Transport and Environment Team’s • Undertake Water neutrality research Climate The draft of the London Water Strategy is work on water issues for 2010-11 will (March - May 2010) - Q1 Change currently been amended following consist of: • Publish Final Strategy (June 2010) - comments from the Mayor's Office and will • Preparing and publishing the final Q1 be launched shortly. London Water Strategy. Now Q2 2011/12 • Delivering GLA actions identified in The strategy had been delayed while the London Water Strategy (principally government completed its White Paper. ensuring that water efficiency However, the paper has been postponed so measures are integrated into the Home it was decided to finalise the strategy Energy Efficiency Programme). regardless. The final strategy will now be • Monitoring the actions of other launched in Q2 2011/12. partners identified in the Water Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team Strategy. • Chairing the London Water Group (an informal forum of water industry partners) and supporting the delivery of the Group’s work programme – especially research into water neutrality. • Working with partners to facilitate the delivery of the Thames Tideway Project. Adapting to The adapting to climate change • Publish Final Adaptation Strategy Climate Adjusting to the impact of the government climate change workstream concerns preparing (September 2010) - Q2 Change Spending Review has taken longer than London for extreme weather today and Q1 2011/12 Adaptation anticipated, resulting in delays. Alternative
Page 68 the increasing risk of floods, droughts • Submit the Adaptation Report to delivery bodies and partners have now been and heatwaves due to climate change. DEFRA (July 2010) - Q2 identified for most of the partners affected The workstream consists of 5 Q1 2011/12 by the Spending Review. The final strategy programmes : will now be published in Q1 2011/12. • Preparing and publishing the London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and delivering/facilitating the actions identified in the strategy. • Supporting the operation of the London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) and the delivery of its work programme. • Submitting the Adaptation Report to DEFRA. • Supporting the delivery of the urban greening programme (see separate SPDF form - 52SP10/11). • Supporting the delivery of Drain London project (see separate SPDF form - 53SP10/11). Climate A new Climate Change Mitigation and • Public consultation draft of Climate Climate A decision was taken to hold final Change Energy Strategy will be written Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy Change publication of the strategy until integration Mitigation and containing policies and proposals - Q2 Mitigation of the LDA into the GLA. The strategy will Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team Energy towards London’s carbon emission Now Q3 2011/12 and Energy now be published in Summer 2011. Strategy reduction targets. The Strategy will • Publish Climate Change Mitigation and LEGGI/LAEI publication is scheduled for undergo two rounds of consultation, Energy Strategy - Q4 Autumn 2011. This has been delayed to firstly the London Assembly and • Publish LAEI/LEGGI - Q4 allow for the letting of a new contract to Functional Body draft. The London Now Q3 2011/12 undertake the work, following legal advice. Assembly draft of the Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy was published in February 2010. A public consultation will be published in Summer 2010 and the final Strategy published by late 2010. Recycle for Recycle for London is a recycling, reuse • Complete 60-day consultation with Waste The r ecycling saves money campaign was London and reduction communications London boroughs and other key delayed due to the Spending Review and its
Page 69 campaign. The campaign is funded by stakeholders - Q1 impacts. It will now commence in Q1 the London Waste and Recycling Board • Finalise 2010/11 communications plan 2011/12. (LWaRB) but based at the GLA. - Q1 Recycle for London has previously • Roll out Love Food Hate Waste A communications plan for 2011/12 will be been funded by WRAP and has run in campaign in London - Q1 developed in Q1 of this 2011/12. London since 2004. The GLA and • Develop and roll out local WRAP have now formed a partnership communications programme with 2010/11 KPIs were reported as planned. to deliver Recycle for London and London boroughs - Q2, Q3 WRAP will bring £2.9m in resources to Now Q4 the London campaign. Recycle for • Report annual KPIs - Q4 London has been awarded £5m from • LWaRB in order to run the campaign Develop and agree 2011/12 for three years and will seek a further communications plan - Q4 £400k from commercial partners. Now Q1 2011/12 Fairer London Reviewing the The GLA Act 2007 requires the • Housing in London 2010 published - Housing The draft for Assembly consultation will be London following consultation to be Q1 Now Q3 published at the end of Q1 2011/12. This Housing undertaken: • Draft for Assembly consultation means that the interim IIA will be completed Strategy • Consultation with the Assembly and completed - Q2 in Q3 2011/12. Functional Bodies on a first draft. Now Q1 2011/12 • A formal written response from the • Interim Integrated Impact Assessment Mayor to the Assembly’s comments. (IIA) completed - Q3 • Consultation with other Now Q3 2011/12 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team organisations, boroughs and the public on a revised draft. • Submission of the final draft Strategy to the Secretary of State, who may direct changes where the Strategy conflicts with national housing policy or will have an adverse effect on regions adjoining greater London. The Act also requires that the London Housing Strategy (LHS) contains the Mayor’s assessment of housing conditions and housing needs – i.e. a housing evidence base.
Page 70 Investing in This project will deliver the following • Delegated delivery pilots commence - Housing The Mayor's strategic housing priorities were London’s aims: Q1 incorporated into the HCA/DCLG Affordable Housing • Maximisation of London’s share of Now 2011/12 Homes Framework published in February national housing resources. • Agreeing London’s share with Minister 2011. • Agreement of the strategic housing - Q2 priorities for London to be delivered in Now Q1 2011/12 Agreeing London’s share with the Minister the next investment round. • Strategic housing priorities included in has slipped to Q1 2011/12 because of the • Mechanisms for distribution of corporate plans and bidding processes introduction of Affordable Rent and a new London’s resources, which reward and of London’s public sector investors - approach to allocating funding. provide an incentive to deliver the Q3 Now Q4 Mayor’s targets. • Targeted Funding Stream resources • A process for allocating the Mayor’s allocated - Q4 Targeted Funding Stream. TFS Abolished Safer London Time for In November 2008 the Mayor released Daedalus Community Daedalus Action / Youth Time for Action, amidst escalating • Three further projects launched - Q1 Safety • A positive interim evaluation report was Violence concerns around youth violence in • Emerging findings report completed - completed. London. Time for Action was a call to Q1 • Programme delivery is on track, with partners around long-term prevention • First evaluation report completed - Q4 targets being met. and intervention and consists of six strands of work intended to tackle Brodie Brodie serious youth violence by equipping • Court Report completed - Q1 • Arrangements have now been agreed for Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team young people for the future. These are: • Pupil Referral Unit pilot starts - Q2 the Safer Learners Partnership. The first supporting young people in custody Now Q4 meetings of the working group were held (Daedalus); keeping young people in • Safer Schools Partnerships - Q3 in Q1 2011/12. education (Brodie); developing Now Q1 2011/12 • The first quarterly report for the Pupil character & responsibility (Titan); Referral Unit Parenting Advocacy Mayor’s Scholars, Academies and Oracle Pathfinder was issued. Twenty seven Apprentices; understanding & sharing • London-wide evaluation standard parents have been engaged to date. what really works (Oracle); and launched - Q1 expanding sport & music opportunities. • Ongoing research programme Oracle established - Q2 • The website 'soft' launch took place at Now Q4 the end of Q4. It hosts practitioner • Web portal new version launch - Q4 guidance which was delivered to milestone. Page 71 Titan • Titan Launch of call for adult volunteers - Q1 • • Funding has been confirmed for a project MPS/LDA/GLA/Prince’s Trust on structured activities. structured programme - Q3 • Funding confirmed for project and Now Q1 2011/12 • Mentoring Programme, but Gant Funding Improved mentoring mechanism rolled Agreement to be awarded in Q1 out - Q3 2011/12. Now Q1 2011/12 • Targeted parenting work - Q4 Scholars • Careers and training event for children in care - Q1 • Near peer mentoring pilot for children in care - Q2 101 one The proposal is to develop a single • Tendering process – Q1 Digital The review, being conducted by TfL, is now number for telephone number for London, which • Procurement of partner organisation - Projects anticipated to finish by the end of June. one London will be used by Londoners, visitors to Q1 Further time is required due to the London and London based businesses • Initiate Phase 1 - Q1 complexity of the project and also due to and organisations to access all public • Produce detailed business case - Q2 the transfer of Mayoral Advisor services across London and to report or responsibilities from Anthony Browne to • Launch of 101 number within the GLA enquire about non-emergency issues Kulveer Ranger. This will include a review of Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team relating to crime and anti -social Group - Q3 potential commercial interest and suitable behaviour. In time, this will be • Initiate Phase 2 - Q4 areas of development for the project. expanded to include access via a web portal, or mobile applications, and it will use other new technologies such as natural speech and self-serve facilities. Honest Government Community The Community Relation Team work • Borough Receptions – Celebratory and Community The only outstanding deliverable is the Relations Work programme incorporates previous community based receptions to Relations London Schools and the Black Child Programme stakeholder activity with a new communicate Mayor’s priorities - Q1, initiative, which will be held in either programme to ensure we reach the rich Q2, Q3, Q4 September or October 2011. diverse community and work with • Khat Conference – An advisory seminar
Page 72 communities on Mayor’s priorities. The with key recommendation on way work programme for 2010/2011 forward on Khat including treatment combines community interaction, options - Q2 providing conferences to link to Decided not to progress this milestone Mayoral policy and devising • Community Cohesion Initiatives – community borough receptions as the Inter-community action to support first stage of the development of the good citizenship especially amongst new Community Relation Team. young people - Q2 • Older People Programme - Q2, Q3 • Educational Underachievement - Q3 Now Q2/Q3 2011/12 • Christmas Carol Service – A Christian and non-denominational coral service - Q3 Corporate Corporate Governance is part of the • Annual Corporate Governance Finance A first version of an e -learning corporate Governance continuous work of the Authority. To Statement - Q1 governance package is currently being help ensure that it is delivered • Annual Corporate Governance Review - tested. The delay accounts for the amber effectively across the GLA, and the Q1 traffic light. wider group, a Steering Group has • Training for members and staff on been established. The Steering Group Corporate Governance (picking up on The risk management audit report will be is responsible for ensuring that an issues from the Audit of Ethical considered at the July Audit Panel meeting. ongoing programme of improvement is Governance) - Q1 The report reached a conclusion of Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team developed and delivered. • Year End report on complaints - Q1 substantial assurance. We are engaging with • Twice yearly reporting on risk - Q1, Q3 internal audit on the audit plan for this year, including whether there are areas relating to corporate governance that can be usefully reviewed. The draft Annual Corporate Governance Statement and Review were presented to the Audit Panel in March 2011. The officer corporate governance steering group is now well-established and considered and provided input into a range
Page 73 of issues throughout the year; for example, project governance for work areas transferring from the LDA and a new Data Quality Framework. Digital Projects A programme of work providing • WiFi London - agree list of boroughs Digital TfL published a Pre -Qualification - WiFi London ‘transparent’ government by making participating in pilots - Q1 Projects Questionnaire (part of the formal data accessible, widening digital Now Q2 procurement process) on Public WiFi. engagement and building London’s • Start of Wifi London pilots - Q1 capability and capacity in using new Now Q3 The 4G pilot at Victoria Coach/Bus Stations digital media. • Evaluation of Wifi pilots - Q3 started in April. Now Q4 The WiFi strand aims to improve wifi • Westminster complete dialogue, go to A new Steering Group has been set up to coverage and capacity in London in the tender & evaluate bids - Q3 discuss WiFi on London Underground and run up to the Olympic and Paralympic Surface Transport. • Borough and TfL sign-off usage of Games in 2012 street furniture - Q3 • Initiate discussions around local area planning frameworks - Q3 • Westminster award contract - Q3 Focus on the deliverable has now changed. Working in Partnership with TfL/LU/Surface Transport to deliver WiFi Section 2 Greater London Authority
Title Description of deliverable Key milesto nes GLA lead - Comments team London. Digital Projects A programme of work providing • Completion of TfL data availability - Digital A Data Charter has been agreed and will be - London ‘transparent’ government by making Q1 Projects launched together with the journey planner Datastore data accessible, widening digital • Resolution of licensing issues with TfL API in Q1 2011/12. engagement and building London’s data - Q1 capability and capacity in using new • Ongoing upload of data - Q1, Q2, Q3, Ongoing engagement work has been digital media. Q4 completed around crime data. • Release of LDA & MPA data - Q2 The London Datastore project, began Now Q3 in late 2009, will ensure the release of • Data Charter to be completed - Q3 new GLA group data and the longer Now Q1 2011/12 term sustainability of the provision of public datasets.
Page 74 Digital Projects A programme of work providing • Oyster integration agreement for Digital Agreement was reached with Visit London to - London Card ‘transparent’ government by making London Card - Q2 Projects piggyback a Looked After Children offer and data accessible, widening digital • London Card - Participating boroughs culture offer onto their pre-paid card engagement and building London’s on board - Q3 proposition. However, the dismantling of capability and capacity in using new • Monitor impact of CSR - Q3 Visit London and reorganisation into a wider digital media. • Series of meetings set up with Visit promotion agency for London has put that London - Q3 work on hold. In the meantime, work is The London Card aims to bring ongoing to engage Looked After Children together a number of different services contacts in scoping the children's offer in for Londoners onto one platform, e.g. more detail. transport, culture offer, access to borough-level services. Section 2 Greater London Authority
Corporate health indicators 2.35 This section of the report outlines performance against the GLA’s corporate health indicators for quarter 4 2010-11 and for the year as a whole. Payment of invoices Figure 2.10 - The percentage of suppliers paid within set timescales from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 Indicator 2010/11 Target Year end
Percentage of all undisputed invoices paid within 92% 87.5% 30 days
Percentage of undisputed SME invoices paid within 85% 86.6% 10 days 2.36 Cumulative performance was affected by the introduction of SAP earlier in the financial year and the annual target for ‘all undisputed invoices’ has been missed as a result. 2.37 Q4 figures show an improvement in performance for both undisputed invoices and SME invoices. Performance for undisputed invoices was 91%, which is just below the set target, and was 88% for SME invoices, which is higher than the set target. 2.38 The target for paying invoices has been increased for 2011/12. This brings the GLA’s target in line with TfL’s. The target for paying all undisputed invoices is 94% within 30 days and the target for paying SME invoices is 90% within 10 days. Correspondence Figure 2.11 - Performance on responding to correspondence, complaints and FOIs 2010/11 Year Indicator 2009/10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target end
Percentage of correspondence 89% 90% 94% 92% 89% 89% 90% responded to in full within 20 days
Percentage of complaints to the GLA 86% 90% 100% 86% 75% 100% 90% responded to in full within 20 working days
Responding to Freedom of Information requests 86% 100% 87% 86% 87% 84% 86% within 20 working days
Page 75 Section 2 Greater London Authority
2.39 Despite receiving very large volumes of correspondence, performance for responding to correspondence has been stable throughout the year. As a result the GLA has met its target of 90%. Where problem areas have been identified, processes have been put in place to assist teams/directorates in meeting the target. An example of this is that the Public Liaison Unit issues reminders to flag up those pieces of correspondence that are near their reply date. In addition officers are assigned to each directorate to monitor correspondence and to highlight issues when deadlines may be missed. 2.40 Complaints performance decreased in Q3 due to staff leave and staff vacancies. However, figures for Q4 show performance improved and 100% of complaints were answered within the 20 working days target. This meant that the GLA met the 90% target for the year. The GLA receives a small number of complaints, hence performance figures will tend to fluctuate from quarter to quarter. 2.41 The GLA regularly receives complex FOI requests that require input from several areas of the business and responding can be time consuming. Work to improve performance, led by the Information Governance team, includes: • Working with officers from those areas that have a higher proportion of late responses to agree steps to prevent future delays. • Sending deadline reminders to officers that have been allocated FOI cases. • A review of the FOI guidance for staff, which will inform work to make the guidance more focussed and user-friendly. • Regular FOI training for new starters. 2.42 Performance in meeting the FOI deadlines was fairly consistent over the year with a slight decline in Q4. There has been a significant increase in the number of FOI requests received throughout the year: 135 requests handled in Q4, a 75% increase from the 77 requests processed in Q1. This higher volume, together with increasingly complex and sophisticated requests, has made it more difficult to provide substantive responses within the statutory deadline.
Page 76 Section 2 Greater London Authority
Temporary Staff Figure 2.12 - The percentage of temporary staff on the agreed organisational establishment list Performance Indicator 2009/10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year end
The percentage of temporary agency staff working within 9% 6.4% 6% 4.5% 2.4% 4.8% the agreed organisational establishment list 2.43 The GLA aims to reduce the percentage of agency staff covering establishment posts. However, it will always be necessary to use some short-term agency staff to cover posts that become vacant as a result of normal staff turnover. Staff Turnover
Figure 2.13 - Leavers over the previous 12 months as a percentage of the average total staff Q4/ Performance Indicator 2009/10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Year end
Leavers in the last year as a 26% 25% 18% 11% 14% percentage of the average total staff 2.44 The relatively high turnover figures at quarters 1 and 2 reflect the impact of Organising for Delivery - this indicator is measured over a rolling year. This impact has now dropped out and this explains in large part the sharp fall in reported turnover for quarter 3. Although turnover increased slightly in Q4, turnover is much lower than a year ago. The current employment market will also have contributed to a turnover rate that is among the lowest reported by the GLA. Staff Sickness Figure 2.14 - Average number of days per employee lost to sickness absence over the previous 12 months Performance 2010/11 Q4/ 2009/10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Indicator Target Year end Average working days per employee (full time equivalent) 5.8 days 6 days 5.86 days 4.54 days 4.05 days 4.14 days per year lost through sickness absence 2.45 Sickness absence continues to be lower than the set target. Where areas of relatively high sickness rates are identified, analysis is undertaken to understand why and to help reduce absence. Human Resources Officers have worked closely with teams/directorates to ensure that the sickness management policy is being used effectively. This has had a positive effect.
Page 77 Recruitment Time Figure 2.15 - Timeliness of recruitment Performance 2010/11 2009/10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year end Indicator Target Average elapsed time (working days) from HR receiving an approval to fill form N/A 40 days 37 days 24 days 35 days 47 days 36 days to the acceptance of an offer for the same post. 2.46 Recruitment time in Q4 increased to 47 days, however the year end performance is still below the set target. This increase is mainly due to a lower proportion of posts being filled through the internal recruitment process, and therefore a greater proportion of posts needing to be filled through the external round of recruitment.
Page 78 Appendix 2
Corporate Performance Report Month 12 11 May 2011
Page 79 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
Overall Position J
The LDA ends the 2010/11 financial year on a positive note. Despite the CSR in the middle of the year, we have met targets in 7 out of the 14 areas, where we have overachieved targets by over 20%. Throughout the year, the agency has continued to work on improvements in the compliance, performance management and finance stabilisation and the progress made has been widely acknowledged.
At the end of March we saw 157 staff leave the agency as a result of the reorganisation and we now have a team of 150 in place to support the transition effort as the LDA closes down and folds into the GLA. The emphasis now is on the orderly transition and closure process which has so far been running smoothly. While we do that we will continue to improve our processes with a focus on compliance so that we protect and maintain our reputation.
Corporate Summary Outputs / Corp. OverallFinance Outcome Health Risks Milestones Issues Influencing Performance Regeneration J J J J J Delays, underspend, compliance Climate Change J J J J J Settlement delays, underspend Sustained Employment J J J J J Under-performance of outcome related contracts, CSR Business Support J J J J J Settlement delays, unable to meet SBG stretch target International Promotion J J J J J On track Olympic Sport J J J J J On track
Comms & Mktg, IMT J J J J J L&G, E&D, Strategy J J J J J Finance J J J J J Settlement confirmed, budgets approved Human Resources J J J J J Procurement J J J J J
Finances
The financial position presented below is based on the draft accounts. Final accounts will be submitted to the APR for sign off at the end of August 2011. The underspend in 2010/11 is £12m against a budget of £2m overspend. This consists of £3m capital overspend and £14m revenue underspend. This is £7m more than forecasted last month due to £4m slippage (underspend) and £3m lower administration costs. The £12m underspend will be carried forward in 2011/12. It is £5m more than what the budget assumption is, due to the £3m lower administration costs and £2m unexpected underspend in programmes. The underspend against the budget is mainly driven by the Olympic land programme, where the revised Olympic land strategy resulted in underspend which is offset by reduced borrowing. Furthermore, in Sustained employment, performance related payments to providers resulted in them not being able to meet certain requirements. The underspend is partially offset by higher administration costs as a provision for transition costs of £7m is put through the 2010/11 accounts with a further £3m ringfenced in reserves. £7m capital receipts have been applied to fund the capital over s Overall actual slippage in 2011/12 is £4m which is £1m below the slippage estimate in P11 and the approved 2011/12 budget.
Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Regeneration (Ex. Oly Land) 33.3 32.2 -1.0 -3% Climate Change 19.8 14.4 -5.4 -27% Sustained Employment 40.5 25.0 -15.6 -38% Business Support 28.1 25.9 -2.2 -8% International Promotion 27.0 25.9 -1.1 -4% Olympic Land 269.4 216.5 -52.9 -20% Olympic Sport 4.0 4.0 0.0 1% Administration 37.6 55.1 17.5 46% Corporate Other 4.9 2.2 -2.7 -55% Jessica Contribution 17.0 17.0 Total Expenditure 481.7 418.3 -63.4 -13%
Capital Expenditure Total 295.3 245.0 -50.3 -17% Revenue Expenditure Total 186.3 173.3 -12.9 -7%
Total Income 479.6 430.1 -49.5 -10% Page 80 Total Net Position -2.1 11.8 13.9
Page 2 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
Outputs / Outcomes J Actual Target Variance % Comment Additional Resources Attracted 115 150 -35 -23% Brownfield Land Redeveloped 9 9 CO2 Equivalent Savings ('000) 790 817 -27 -3% Jobs Generated / Safeguarded 8,795 3,900 4,895 126% Public Realm Areas Improved 1 13 -12 -92% Reduced actual as a result of the CSR Sustained Business Growth 169 280 -111 -40% Unable to achieve stretch target Sustained Employment 2,473 2,000 473 24% Tourism Promotion 35 -35 -100% Bus Link Intensive Support 6,656 5,625 1,031 18% Business / Knowledge Base Collabs.308 300 8 3% Employability Support 26,282 36,000 -9,718 -27% CSR, underperforming contracts Housing for Londoners 449 1,000 -551 -55% Reduced outturn as a result of the CSR Positive Activities for Young People8,469 8,400 69 1% Skills Development 6,411 8,700 -2,289 -26% CSR, underperforming contracts
Top 5 Best Achievements What learning can we apply elsewhere 1. Mayor and LDA Board approval of budgets and business plans 2. Completion of the re-organisation and additional pay run completed 3. Rearrangement of 6th floor to accommodate all LDA staff 4. Only 11 compulsory redundancies out of 157 redundancies 5. Handover of all projects prior to 31/3/11 for Olympic Sport, International Promotion and Business Support
Top 5 Worst Issues What can we do about it 1. Slow progress on Estates and Capital Receipts accounting Dedicated resource working with GVA, regular meetings diarised 2. Visit London going into administration Checks carried out to confirm LDA's position, KPMG support 3. Staff have struggled to input on the due diligence work 4. Communications in relations to Retention scheme still outstanding
Top Risks J # Risk Description Rating & Trend 1 Inability of the Agency to manage itself and services as it winds Closure plan in place overseen by Project Board with reporting down due to pace of change to GMT and ARP 2OM 1New 2 Projects not closed in orderly or timely manner leading to Planning/managing closure - identification, timing, costs, 34NewOM reputational/ performance issues with delivery partners obligations. Arrangements for ongoing delivery 5OM Likelihood
3 Inability to retain key staff impacting ability to deliver commitments & Identification of critical roles/ staff. Retention scheme. Comms. closedown projects and Agency Support package Impact 4 Tax. Unquantifiable financial risk relating to the work underway Interim VAT specialist in place from November 2010. VAT within finance in respect of tax arrangements, which may result in a guidance improved, procedures to ensure full compliance new payment or repayment of tax enhanced
5 Poor stakeholder engagement during closedown & transfer of Reputation management strategy & plan. Ongoing operations adversely impacts on reputation communication with stakeholders
Certification Signature Date Name
Page 81
Page 3 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
Regeneration J
The programme delivered against most of its budgets. The final outturn is £32.2m against a budget of £33.3m. The significant revenue underspend is driven by a combination of projects frozen by CSR (e.g., LHPC: £0.2m, DfL £0.1m, GED £0.14m) and unbudgeted income (Crystal Palace £0.37m, Estate Management £2.9m). While there are also underspends on capital due to CSR and a prepayment slippage on High Street 2012 (£1.43m) and Lyric £0.5m against 10/11 budget) these are offset by the 10/11 prepayment pressure from Dalston Roseberry Place (£5.6m) and St Andrews Hospital Acquisition (£0.96m) as well as the recognition of gross expenditure on Wembley CPO (£2.25m).
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Launched Royal Docks marketing at MIPIM Royals Business Park: slipped receipts due to delay in planning process Settlement of Silvertown Way CPO claim in 10/11. High Street 2012 prepayment confirmed resulting in £1.43m slippage Lewisham Gateway legal agreements finalised Lyric Theatre claim paid - however treated as prepayment in 10/11
Finances J Year Year* (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % BudgetComment Variance % Comment Capital - regen 25.4 28.8 3.4 13% 25.4 28.8 3.4 13% Act>Bgdt due to unbudgeted 09/10 pre-pymtsM Revenue - regen 7.8 3.4 -4.4 -56% 7.83.4 -4.4 -56% AdditionalO Revenue income reducing actual. Total - regen 33.3 32.2 -1.0 -3% 33.3 32.2 -1.0 -3% Capital - oly land 235.3 187.6 -47.8 -20% 235.3 187.6 -47.8 -20% O Revenue - oly land 34.1 28.9 -5.2 -15% 34.1 28.9 -5.2 -15% O Total - oly land 269.4 216.5 -52.9 -20% 269.4 216.5 -52.9 -20% protracted negotiationsO in land acquisition
Targets J Year Year Plan Actual Variance % Target Outturn Variance % Comment Add. Resource 72 71 -1 -1% 72 71 -1 -1% O Brownfield Redevelo p 9 9 9 9 Housing for Ldn. 658 369 -289 -44% 658 369 -289 -44% Reduced outturn as a resultO of the CSR Public Realm 13 1 -12 -92% 131 -12 -92% ReducedO outturn as a result of the CSR
Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Prepayments on HS 2012 and Oly Park Arts create pressures Seek to secure funding for prepayment amounts through in 11/12 that threaten delivery slippage allocation 2 Lack of clarity on status of GLA funded projects delays project Engage with Finance and GLA to clarify process and delivery governance for delivering projects 1OM 2OM Likelihood
3 Dagenham Dock - the LDA is still accountable to fund the Financial settlement reached with LTGDC and funding 3OM completion of the capital works in 2011/12 slipped to 11/12 to pay this, subject to Mayoral approval Impact
Key Milestones J Gateway Perf. Milestone Description Comment on Progress A B C D J Finalise legal agreements Silvertown Way Achieved Apprvd 0 0 0 0 J Process grant - Lyric theatre Achieved Slipped 1 6 J Flatiron Square - PC - Bankside Achieved Rejected
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Silvertown Way Two CPO claims were settled in March (£1.4m) bringing spend slightly over original approvals (light change control agreed to cover extra spend) Olympic Fringe Delivery Programme Delivered projected 10/11 spend against complex programme. Project for community park around major gateway into Olympic site (Three Mills Green) completed. Royal Docks Visioning and Strategic Very successful launch of Royal Docks at MIPIM alongside announcement of Meanwhile competition Delivery winners. Docks also given Enterprise Zone status further boosting appeal to market.
Certification Name Signature Date
Page 82
Page 4 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
Climate Change J
Due to CSR :RE:NEW underspend (£3.2m), reclassification of London Thames Gateway Heat Network to (£0.6m). London Carbon Trust Scheme (£1.165m) was not in contract. Pressure of £1.1m for Crystal Palace Park CHP. £17m Jessica budget has been excluded here, but there is spend of £17m.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) DE & RE:FIT have confirmed of ELENA funding totalling £5.4m CLCT needs £25k to meet its contractual commitment - with finance LCC FTSE/LSE event with Mayor launched Waste Fund for LGF Funding of £75k required to do green deal development - with GLA RE:NEW grant award letters for 2011/12 signed totalling £5.8m
Finances J Year Year* (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Capital 14.1 10.7 -3.5 -25% 14.1 10.7 -3.5 -25% O Revenue 5.7 3.8 -1.9 -34% 5.7 3.8 -1.9 -34% Due toO misallocation of income Total 19.8 14.4 -5.4 -27% 19.8 14.4 -5.4 -27% Due to CSR O
Targets J Year Year Plan Actual Variance % Target Outturn Variance % Comment Add. Resource 31 2 -28 -92% 31 2 -28 -92% O CO2e Savings 817 790 -27 -3% 817 790 -27 -3% O Bus/KB Collab. 15 15 15 15
Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 2012/13 budget needs defining by June 2011 to allow In discussions with GLA sufficient time for project development and procurement 2 Limited staff resources available to support any further Reviewing team allocations with GLA, and discussing 2 project development/delivery. RE:FIT particularly affected RE:FIT interim resources pending ELENA procurement 1 3 3 Availability of GLA/TfL procurement/legal resource could In discussions with GLA as part of transition activity Likelihood hamper delivery in 2011/12 Impact
Key Milestones J Gateway Perf. Milestone Description Comment on Progress A B C D J Transition to GLA Planning for 1/7/11 Apprvd 0 0 0 0 J RE:NEW grant agreements in place Letter signed, agreements due to complete mid May Slipped 1 1 J Procurement of ELENA teams In discussion with TfL legal. GLA to write MD Rejectd
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Low Carbon Capital Event delivered. Overall scoping underway for 2011/12 programme and beyond
Olympic Retrofit Detailed planning underway, expecting to delivery 2000+ home retrofits and 8+ schools. Fully funded by ODA. Gateway B in development RE:FIT 32 public sector organisations have signed MOUs to use RE:FIT. £2.7m of works is currently in procurement or underway. Pipeline totals £30m
Certification Name Signature Date
Page 83
Page 5 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
A Sustained Employment J
Overall, the Sustained Employment (SE) 2010/11 under-spend is due to a combination of factors, including not progressing projects into contract due to CSR budget reductions, termination of under-performing projects and under- performance against outcome-based performance related contracts. The L&S teams have endeavoured to maintain unit costs and value for money across all SE projects.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Finance Outturn for SE Theme has been stabilised since M10. Impact of early termination of under-performing projects Improved performance of SECP CSR related project development & procurement delays
A Finances J Year Year* (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Capital 0.9 0.9 0.0 -2% 0.9 0.9 0.0 -3% As profiled O Revenue 39.5 24.1 -15.5 -39% 39.6 24.1 -15.6 -39% O Total 40.5 25.0 -15.6 -38% 40.6 25.0 -15.6 -38% OutcomeO based contracts
A Targets J Year Year Plan ActualVariance% Target Outturn Variance % Comment S1 Add. Resource 23 2 -21 -92% 23 2 -21 -92% O S2 Emp. Support 35949 25732 -10217 -28% 35949 25732 -10217 -28% O S3 PAYP 8400 8469 69 1% 8400 8469 69 1% M S4 Skills Development 8700 6230 -2470 -28% 8700 6230 -2470 -28% O S5 Sustained Emp. 2000 2465 465 23% 2000 2465 465 23% M S6 Housing for London 80 80 80 80 S7
R Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Under-performance of outcome related performance Project management of conversion rate and unit cost to contracts maintain value for money 1 2 Reputational risk associated with early termination of Continue to work with the LDA Comms Team & Boroughs to 3 underperforming projects manage the reputational risk of CAP09 Closure 2 Likelihood 3 Management of business as usual, project handover and Dedicated leads identified for Closure & Handover. closure as staff exit during LDA transition Impact
G Key Milestones J Gateway Perf. Milestone Description Comment on Progress Comment o n A B C D
G s London Ambassadors Interview centres ready for the recruitment rounds Apprvd 0 0 0 0 L&S Handover Target: 131* projects by 31/03/11 Slipped G J (*corrected as at 31/03/11) Target Met Rejected J
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update London Ambassadors 21,800 have applied for the scheme. Interviews commencing across the training centres in London next period.
Certification Name Signature Date
*GD Forecast Outturn
Page 84
Page 6 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
A Business Support J
Overall underspend is due to in year negotiated savings with Delivery Partners, and clawbacks. Projects are performing well on outputs/outcomes with the exception of Sustained Business Growth which was always been a stretch target, and Housing for Londoners which is managed by DDE. Competefor registrations continue to rise and funding to Games time has been confirmed. Activity underway to seek relevant approvals for continuation of projects into 11/12 where budget has been allocated.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Handover of all projects prior to 31/3/11 Reduced budgets for 11/12 requiring revised DoV CompeteFor funding confirmed to Games time
A Finances J Year Year* (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Capital 0.5 0.1 -0.5 -88% 0.5 0.1 -0.5 -89% ClawbackO on SFIE. Deferral of Ford to 11/12 Revenue 27.6 25.9 -1.7 -6% 27.6 25.9 -1.7 -6% In year neg. savings, clawback O Total 28.1 25.9 -2.2 -8% 28.1 25.9 -2.2 -8% O
A Targets J Year Year Plan Actual Variance % Target Outturn Variance % Comment B1 Add. Resource 16 29 13 82% 16 29 13 82% M B2 Bus Lnk Int. Sup. 5625 7256 1631 29% 5625 7256 1631 29% M B3 Bus/KB Collab. 300 293 -7 -2% 300 293 -7 -2% O B4 Jobs Gen/Safe 900 1921 1021 113% 900 1921 1021 113% M B5 Sus. Bus. Growth 235 165 -70 -30% 235 165 -70 -30% KnownO stretch target B6 Emp. Support 51 761 710 1392% 51 761 710 1392% M O B7 Housing for London 262 -262 -100% 262 -262 -100% Managed by DDE.
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Approvals for 11/12 projects are not achieved on time, All approval paperwork is underway delaying delivery in 11/12 2 Project closure takes longer than expected due to late return Regular liaison with Delivery Partners of SGEs 1 2 Likelihood
Impact
G Key Milestones J Gateway Perf. Milestone Description Comment on Progress A B C D J G App & DoV in place for 11/12 projects by end May On target Apprvd 0 0 0 0 J Slipped 2 J Rejectd
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Business Link Revised DoV under development. Service running to national closure date of 25 November 2011.
British Library IP Centre Funding for 11/12 going through approval process. Brit Lib team have been successful in their ERDF bid.
CompeteFor Competefor continues to grow. £141,353 UK organisations registered of which 40,607 are in London. 8518 contracts published. Discussion about its legacy is now a priority.
Certification Name Signature Date
*GD Forecast Outturn
Page 85
Page 7 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
G International Promotion J
London and Partners was launched successfully on 1 April 2011. All other promotion projects ceased delivery at 31st March and will now be closed by the LDA; with the exception of the Emerging Markets Operational Programme and Film London which are funded in 11/12. The GLA will fund Events for London, London Design Festival and British Fashion Council in 11/12. Outputs/outcomes all on target for the year.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Launch of London & Partners on 1 April 2011 Visit London going into administration Outputs/outcome targets all on target to achieve. All projects handed over by 31/3/11
G Finances J Year Year* (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Capital Revenue 27.0 25.9 -1.1 -4% 27.0 25.9 -1.1 -4% PlannedO savings & clawback on undefrayed Total 27.0 25.9 -1.1 -4% 27.0 25.9 -1.1 -4% expenditureO
G Targets J Year Year Plan Actual Variance % Target Outturn Variance % Comment I1 Add. Resource 8 11 3 33% 8 11 3 33% M I2 Jobs Gen/Safe 3000 7207 4207 140% 3000 7207 4207 140% M I3 Tourism Promo. 35 -35 -100% 35 -35 -100% O I4 Sus. Bus. Growth 40 -40 -100% 40 -40 -100% O I5 I6 I7
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Delay in VL asset transfer to L&P (due to potential sale) Legal advice being sought means req'mnt for greater GLA funding in 11/12 to L&P 2 Risk of non receipt of Q4 outputs and SGE from Visit London Administrators have been advised of year end requirements 2L 1L 3 Likelihood 3 Project closure takes longer than expected due to late return Regular liaison with Delivery Partners of SGEs Impact
G Key Milestones J Gateway Perf. Milestone Description Comment on Progress A B C D J G Staff transfer on 3rd May On target Apprvd 0 0 0 0 J G Payment of Film London Mayoral Direction in May On target Slipped 1 G J Closure of projects post SGE On target Rejectd
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Film London Draft Mayoral Direction received from the GLA for 11/12 funding.
Set up of London & Partners This is now live and a grant agreement is in place between L&P and the GLA for £15m funding for 11/12
Certification Name Signature Date
*GD Forecast Outturn
Page 86
Page 8 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
G Olympic Sport J
Month 12 outturn is in line with the budget. At the beginning of March the GLA amended the Mayoral Direction to be all revenue funded which accounts for the variance in capital and revenue funding below. The projects have performed well and IFI is on track to achieve its Sustained Business Growth outcomes for 10/11. The GLA is continuing the Inclusive Fitness Initiative and Play Sport London projects.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Achm't of skills general outputs despite early closure of 2 projects No. of participants reached over lifetime of Play Sport London prog. Handover of all projects prior to 31/3/11
G Finances J Year Year* (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Capital 2.0 -2.0 -100% 2.0 -2.0 -100% GLA amendedO MD to be all revenue Revenue 2.0 4.0 2.0 102% 2.0 4.1 2.1 103% GLA amended MD to be all revenue M Total 4.0 4.0 0.0 1% 4.0 4.1 0.0 1% M
G Targets J Year Year Plan Actual Variance % Target Outturn Variance % Comment O1 Sus. Bus. Growth 5 3 -2 -40% 5 5 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Project closures take longer than expected due to late return Regular liaison with Delivery Partners of SGEs
1 Likelihood
Impact
G Key Milestones J Gateway Perf. Milestone Description Comment on Progress A B C D J G Payment of 11/12 MD in April 2011 On target Apprvd 0 0 0 0 J G Closure of remaining projects On target Slipped J Rejectd
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Mayoral Direction for A Sporting 11/12 payment due to go out in April 2011. Legacy Play Sport London Confirmation of final quarter 4 outputs due in April 2011
Certification Name Signature Date
*GD Forecast Outturn
Page 87
Page 9 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
G Communications & Marketing, IMT J
A key milestone in the transition to closure has been reached with the significant reduction in staff numbers and implementation of the new organisation structure for 11/12. We have supported this process ensuring that all essential support services (IT, FM, H&S and Comms) were effectively managed during the clearing of the 5th and 7th floors resulting in the allocation of all LDA staff to the 6th floor. The LDA continues to work closely with the GLA to smoothly transition projects with DWfL and London Ambassadors being transferred first (as pilots) in Q1 11/12. Regular communication has been vital with staff during this difficult time of change/transition.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Completion of DD on FOIs/Public Enquiries Support for leavers process - 100% return of IT assets Rearrangement of 6th floor to accommodate all LDA staff
G Finances J Year Year Admin Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Comms & Marketing 1.74 1.43 -0.31 -18% 1.74 1.43 -0.31 -18% O IMT 6.85 5.95 -0.90 -13% 6.85 5.95 -0.90 -13% O
G Corporate Health Indicators J Yr Ago Trend (12mth) Target Current Variance % Comment % Readership of staff update 65 L 65 62 -3 -5% M H&S incidents 6 OM 0 1 1 Stakeholder satisfaction 3.2 3.5 -3.5 -100% O IT incident calls received 223 L 200 477277 139% M % IT calls solved within SLA 91 N 90 -90 -100% O
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Failure to transfer data to GLA to meet their deadlines Comprehensive analysis work with project managers to agree data required 2 Increased pressure on LDA resources following reduction in staff Staff briefed and are aware of the extra demands that may numbers be placed on them during this period. Likelihood
Impact
G Key Milestones J Milestone Description Comment on Progress G J Transfer of 5th floor lease On target, legal paperwork awaiting signoff G J 200 redundant PC's securely recycled Complete G J Transferred staff from 5th and 7th floor Work started in late March and continued into April
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Accommodation Review On Schedule
Subregional Partnerships and London Successfully completed - March 2011 Health Commission Joint Thames Gateway Secretariat Successfully completed - March 2011
Certification Name Signature Date
Page 88
Page 10 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
A Law & Governance J
The L&G team continues business as usual concluding a large number of year end matters and supporting those deliver y colleagues closing or transferring their projects at the end of March. There has been an increased workload on project transfer matters as well as due diligence and a considerable resource has been required to identify and locate legal documentation for due diligence work. The Governance Team has also been engaged in the review and redesign of sig n off processes for the new organisational structure.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) First due diligence reports shared with GMT and GLA Increased workload Number of projects reviewed through the PDAB process Loss of knowledge from project managers leaving Working with GLA to manage MD process Impact of colleagues leaving on team morale
G Finances J Year Year AdminBudget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Law & Governance 1.65 1.47 -0.18 -11% 1.65 1.47 -0.18 -11% O
A Corporate Health Indicators J Yr Ago Trend (12mth) Target Current Variance % Comment New claims & investigations - - - Pot. cost of legal claims (£m) - - % of reports on time 100 22 -78 -78% 21#REF! of 27 reports submitted late
R Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Volume of MDs for consultation expected causing additional Clear and well defined process for consultation in place workload pressure 2 Time pressure caused by desire to transfer projects to GLA Clear allocation of matters and monitoring of workload quickly required Likelihood
Impact
A Key Milestones J Milestone Description Comment on Progress A J Transfer of programmes and projects to GLA Ongoing A J Completion of Due Diligence workstreams On track J
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Cable Car Facilitating arrangements for project
London Ambassadors Working with colleagues to arrange priority transfer to GLA
Certification Name Signature Date
Page 89
Page 11 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
A Equalities & Diversity J
The Equalities Team is moving towards closedown. Arrangements are being put in place to secure the Agency's compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and to ensure the sustainability of our work. A move to the GLA of DWfL has been confirmed and a transfer plan is being developed to enable this to happen for 1 April 2011.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Equalities closedown report approved by Closure Programme Board. Equality Act 2010 Action Plan approved for implementation. DWfL to transfer to the GLA.
A Finances J YTD Year AdminBudget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Equalities 0.56 0.60 0.04 8% 0.56 0.60 0.04 8% M
G Corporate Health Indicators J Yr Ago Trend (12mth) Target Current Variance % Comment Registrations on DWfL 81 81
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Equalities handover is not managed effectively. Head of Service to meet with HR colleagues regularly to ensure an effective handover. 2OM 3L 2 Collation and analysis of equalities performance data not Equalities Team to work closely with Closure Programme completed on time. Board and HR to address any issues. Likelihood
3 DWfL will not be ready for transfer to GLA by 1 April 2011. Regular liaison with Closure Board on any emerging issues 1N or risks. Impact
G Key Milestones J Milestone Description Comment on Progress G J Transfer of DWfL to the GLA LDA transfer project team working towards 01/04/11 G J Progress report to Closure Programme Board in Mar Handover arrangements are in place J
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Diversity Works for London Transfer plan is being developed for the move of DWfL to the GLA.
Loreca Awaiting sign off.
Certification Name Signature Date
Page 90
Page 12 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
G Finance J
We have now received our indicative budget settlement for 2011-12 from BIS and have agreed with the GLA as to the split of funding between the LDA and GLA. The Board has approved the 2011-12 Budget on 29th March. The new Finance structure is now in place and all vacant roles in Corporate Finance have been filled, including a secondment from the GLA to support the transition. The focus in Finance is now on supporting the closure and handover of projects to the GLA and delivering a successful 2010-11 Financial Year End Close.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Mayor and LDA Board approval of budgets and business plans Estates (gross/net) and Capital Receipts accounting and monitoring Quality assurance and review of Project handover forms New Finance structure and roles in place
A Finances J YTD Year AdminBudget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Finance 4.08 6.30 2.22 54% 4.08 6.30 2.22 54% Improvement plan overspend v budget M
G Corporate Health Indicators J Yr Ago Trend (12mth) Target Current Variance % Comment % Invoice payment < 10 days 92 L 90 92 2 3% Exceeded target O Int. audit actions overdue 0 All actions completed Admin costs as % of total L 17 13.7 -3 -19% M Level of prudential borrowing L 543 600 57 10% £ 220m short term loan from GLA M Debtors Creditors Provision for liabilities
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Year end tasks and Stabilisation improvements impacted by Retain key staff. Monitor through KPIs and prioritise actions
exit of key staff 1OM 2 HMRC disagree with historical Corporation Tax and VAT We are regularly engaging with HMRC to discuss and agree 2New matters which therefore results in financial penalties a position on historical matters Likelihood
Impact
G Key Milestones J Milestone Description Comment on Progress G J 10-11 Project Closure Work completed G J Audit Commission Interim Audit Work completed A J Review of Project handover forms Work ongoing as projects are being transferred
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update Financial Control and Corporate Year end work commenced. Continuing to support closure activities Finance Corporate Finance Business Plans and Budgets approved. Quality review of project handover and closure forms ongoing
LDA Closure Working with GLA and the business to identify risks / issues
Certification Name Signature Date
Page 91
Page 13 Corporate Performance Report Month 12
G Human Resources J
The re-organisation has now been completed - with effect from 1st of April, the LDA establishment is composed of 150 established posts + 17 externally funded (EPMU). Eight employees will be moving to GLA under TUPE (5 London Ambassadors + 1 DWfL + 2 London Welcome). This transfer is scheduled to take place on 1st of May 2011. Discussions with GLA will continue regarding transfer of functions and staff with an agreed timescale in place.
Top 3 Best (Achievements) Top 3 Worst (Issues) Completion of the re-organisation and additional payrun completed Retention scheme still awaiting BIS approval Only 11 compulsory redundancies out of 157 redundancies First 8 TUPE transfer employees to GLA agreed/confirmed
G Finances J Year Year AdminBudget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance % Comment Human Resources 1.21 1.14 -0.07 -6% 1.21 1.14 -0.07 -6% O
G Corporate Health Indicators J Yr Ago Trend (12mth) Target Current Variance % Comment Total headcount 419 N 457 194 -263 -58% 150 established + 17 EPMUO + 27 Temp resourc e Established posts 457 N 418 150 -268 -64% Agreed with Board O O Externally funded posts N 39 17 -22 -56% EPMU M % Turnover (foreseen) 0 N 5 3 -2 -38% Planned - due to VR % Turnover (unforeseen) 2 N 25 -25 -100% O O Non-established posts 100 N 72 30 -42 -58% All posts are time bound and agreed by Closure Temps & consultants 133 N 28 28 Reviewed 0% Temps & consultants >20wks N 13 13 Reviewed
A Top Risks J # Risk Description Mitigation Rating & Trend 1 Further staff reductions Agree with SMT schedule of reductions
2 Key staff leaving the LDA impacting on ability to deliver Retention scheme approval closedown Likelihood
Impact
G Key Milestones J Milestone Description Comment on Progress G J Completion of re-organisation and additional pay run Completed G J TUPE transfer to GLA First 8 employees confirmed to transfer in May J
Focus on Key Projects Project Name Project Update
Certification Name Signature Date Frederico Maia 20-Apr-11
Page 92
Page 14 Corporate Performance Report
A Total Budget Monitor Month 12
A Expenditure Month to Date Full Year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Regeneration 6.35 9.10 2.75 43% 33.26 32.24 -1.02 -3% 33.26 32.24 -1.02 -3% Olympic Land 49.24 15.26 -33.98 -69% 269.41 216.51 -52.91 -20% 269.41 216.46 -52.95 -20% Regeneration sub-total 55.59 24.36 -31.23 -56% 302.67 248.74 -53.93 -18% 302.67 248.69 -53.98 -18%
Climate Change 2.51 1.38 -1.13 -45% 19.83 14.43 -5.40 -27% 19.83 14.43 -5.40 -27% Climate Change sub-total 2.51 1.38 -1.13 -45% 19.83 14.43 -5.40 -27% 19.83 14.43 -5.40 -27%
Sustained Employment 4.89 2.17 -2.72 -56% 23.82 14.06 -9.76 -41% 23.82 14.06 -9.77 -41% Youth 3.27 1.72 -1.56 -48% 11.37 6.98 -4.40 -39% 11.37 6.98 -4.40 -39% Olympic Skills 1.62 1.34 -0.28 -17% 5.36 3.94 -1.42 -27% 5.36 3.94 -1.42 -27% Sustained Employment sub-total 9.79 5.23 -4.56 -47% 40.55 24.97 -15.58 -38% 40.55 24.97 -15.59 -38%
Business Support 3.49 2.28 -1.22 -35% 27.02 24.94 -2.08 -8% 27.02 24.94 -2.08 -8% Olympic Business 0.16 0.05 -0.11 -69% 1.09 0.98 -0.11 -10% 1.09 0.98 -0.11 -10% Business Support sub-total 3.65 2.33 -1.33 -36% 28.11 25.92 -2.19 -8% 28.11 25.92 -2.19 -8%
International Promotion 2.34 2.17 -0.16 -7% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4% International Promotion sub-total 2.34 2.17 -0.16 -7% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4%
Olympic Sport 0.04 0.09 0.05 118% 4.00 4.05 0.05 1% 4.00 4.05 0.05 1% Olympic Sport sub-total 0.04 0.09 0.05 118% 4.00 4.05 0.05 1% 4.00 4.05 0.05 1%
Corporate Planning 0.38 0.40 0.02 4% 2.32 2.23 -0.09 -4% 2.32 2.23 -0.09 -4% Contingency 0.26 -0.26 -100% 2.60 -2.60 -100% 2.60 2.60 Administration 3.29 20.05 16.76 509% 37.61 55.09 17.48 46% 37.61 55.09 17.48 46% Jessica Contribution 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Corporate Other sub-total 3.93 20.45 16.52 420% 59.53 74.32 14.78 25% 59.53 76.92 17.38 29%
Total Net Expenditure 77.86 56.01 -21.85 -28% 481.72 418.33 -63.39 -13% 481.72 420.89 -60.84 -13% Project outside 11 Programmes Grand Total 77.86 56.01 -21.85 -28% 481.72 418.33 -63.39 -13% 481.72 420.89 -60.84 -13%
Income Month to Date Full Year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Core Grants 274.63 274.63 274.63 273.84 -0.79 -0.3% Borrowing 201.00 111.09 -89.91 -45% 201.00 152.06 -48.94 -24.3% Capital Receipts 0.33 -0.33 -100% 4.00 7.00 3.00 75% 4.00 4.00 Capital Receipts 1.65 1.65 37.40 37.40 2009/10 b/f Balance Sheet Adjustments Total Income 0.33 1.65 1.32 395% 479.63 430.12 -49.51 -10% 479.63 429.90 -49.73 -10.4%
Net Position Month to Date Full Year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Total Net Position -77.53 -54.36 23.17 -30% -2.09 11.79 13.88 -663% -2.09 9.01 11.11 -530%
Page 93
Page 15 Corporate Performance Report
A Capital Budget Monitor Month 12
A Expenditure Month to Date Full year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Regeneration 5.37 7.58 2.21 41% 25.41 28.80 3.40 13% 25.41 28.80 3.40 13% Olympic Land 46.30 13.00 -33.30 -72% 235.31 187.56 -47.75 -20.3% 235.31 187.56 -47.75 -20% Regeneration sub-total 51.67 20.58 -31.09 -60% 260.72 216.36 -44.36 -17.0% 260.72 216.36 -44.36 -17%
Climate Change 2.15 1.48 -0.67 -31% 14.15 10.67 -3.47 -25% 14.15 10.67 -3.47 -25% Climate Change sub-total 2.15 1.48 -0.67 -31% 14.15 10.67 -3.47 -24.6% 14.15 10.67 -3.47 -25%
Sustained Employment 0.90 0.90 0.00 0% 0.90 0.90 0.00 0% Youth 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -259.0% 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -259% Olympic Skills -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 Sustained Employment sub-total -0.01 -0.01 0.90 0.89 -0.02 -2% 0.90 0.89 -0.02 -2%
Business Support 0.36 0.00 -0.36 -99% 0.54 0.06 -0.48 -88% 0.54 0.06 -0.48 -88% Olympic Business Business Support sub-total 0.36 0.00 -0.36 -99% 0.54 0.06 -0.48 -88% 0.54 0.06 -0.48 -88%
International Promotion International Promotion sub-total
Olympic Sport 2.00 -2.00 -100% 2.00 -2.00 -100% Olympic Sport sub-total 2.00 -2.00 -100% 2.00 -2.00 -100%
Corporate Planning Contingency Administration Jessica Contribution 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Corporate Other sub-total 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00
Total Net Expenditure 54.17 22.05 -32.12 -59% 295.32 244.99 -50.33 -17% 295.32 244.99 -50.33 -17.0% Project outside 11 Programmes Grand Total 54.17 22.05 -32.12 -59% 295.32 244.99 -50.33 -17% 295.32 244.99 -50.33 -17%
Income Month to Date Full Year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Core Grants 86.92 86.92 86.92 86.92 Borrowing 201.00 111.09 -89.91 -44.7% 201.00 152.06 -48.94 -24% Capital Receipts-Olympics 0.33 -0.33 -100% 4.00 7.00 3.00 75% 4.00 4.00 Capital Receipts-other 1.65 37.40 37.40 2009/10 b/f Balance Sheet Adjustments Total Income 0.33 1.65 1.32 395% 291.92 242.41 -49.51 -17% 291.92 242.98 -48.94 -17%
Net Position Month to Date Full Year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Total Net Position -53.84 -20.40 33.44 -62% -3.40 -2.58 0.82 -24.1% -3.40 -2.01 1.39 -40.9%
Page 94
Page 16 Corporate Performance Report
A Revenue Budget Monitor Month 12
A Expenditure Month to Date Full year Year (system) (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Regeneration 0.98 1.52 0.53 54% 7.85 3.43 -4.42 -56% 7.85 3.43 -4.42 -56% Olympic Land 2.94 2.26 -0.68 -23% 34.10 28.95 -5.15 -15% 34.10 28.90 -5.20 -15% Regeneration sub-total 3.93 3.78 -0.15 -4% 41.95 32.38 -9.57 -23% 41.95 32.33 -9.62 -23%
Climate Change 0.37 -0.10 -0.47 -127% 5.68 3.76 -1.92 -34% 5.68 3.76 -1.92 -34% Climate Change sub-total 0.37 -0.10 -0.47 -127% 5.68 3.76 -1.92 -34% 5.68 3.76 -1.92 -34%
Sustained Employment 4.89 2.17 -2.72 -56% 22.81 13.16 -9.66 -42% 22.92 13.16 -9.77 -43% Youth 3.27 1.72 -1.56 -48% 11.37 6.98 -4.38 -39% 11.37 6.98 -4.38 -39% Olympic Skills 1.62 1.36 -0.26 -16% 5.36 3.94 -1.42 -26% 5.36 3.94 -1.42 -26% Sustained Employment sub-total 9.79 5.24 -4.54 -46% 39.54 24.08 -15.46 -39% 39.65 24.08 -15.57 -39%
Business Support 3.13 2.27 -0.86 -27% 26.48 24.87 -1.60 -6% 26.48 24.87 -1.60 -6% Olympic Business 0.16 0.05 -0.11 -69% 1.09 0.98 -0.11 -10% 1.09 0.98 -0.11 -10% Business Support sub-total 3.29 2.32 -0.97 -30% 27.56 25.86 -1.71 -6% 27.56 25.86 -1.71 -6%
International Promotion 2.34 2.17 -0.16 -7% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4% International Promotion sub-total 2.34 2.17 -0.16 -7% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4% 27.03 25.91 -1.12 -4%
Olympic Sport 0.04 0.09 0.05 118% 2.00 4.05 2.05 102% 2.00 4.05 2.05 102% Olympic Sport sub-total 0.04 0.09 0.05 118% 2.00 4.05 2.05 102% 2.00 4.05 2.05 102%
Corporate Planning 0.38 0.40 0.02 4% 2.32 2.23 -0.09 -4% 2.32 2.23 -0.09 -4% Contingency 0.26 -0.26 -100% 2.60 -2.60 -100% 2.60 2.60 Administration 3.29 20.05 16.76 509% 37.61 55.09 17.48 46% 37.61 55.09 17.48 46% Jessica Contribution Corporate Other sub-total 3.93 20.45 16.52 420% 42.53 57.32 14.78 35% 42.53 59.92 17.38 41%
Total Net Expenditure 23.69 33.96 10.27 43% 186.29 173.35 -12.95 -7% 186.41 175.90 -10.51 -6% Project outside 11 Programmes Grand Total 23.69 33.96 10.27 43% 186.29 173.35 -12.95 -7% 186.41 175.90 -10.51 -6%
Income Month to Date Full year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Core Grants 187.71 187.71 187.71 186.92 -0.79 0% Borrowing Capital Receipts-Olympics Capital Receipts-other 2009/10 b/f Balance Sheet Adjustments Total Income 187.71 187.71 187.71 186.92 -0.79 0%
Net Position Month to Date Full year Year (all figures in £m) Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Variance % Budget Outturn Variance %
Total Net Position -23.69 -33.96 -10.27 43% 1.42 14.36 12.95 914% 1.30 11.02 9.72
Page 95
Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 96 Appendix 3
Agenda item
Report title End of Year Financial and Service Monitoring 2010/11 4
Meeting Date Finance and Personnel Committee 11 July 2011
Report by Document Number Deputy Commissioner FEP 1766 Director of Finance and Contractual Services 21 June 2011
Public
Summary This is the service and financial performance monitoring report for the 2010/11 financial year. It provides information on financial performance against budget together with commentary on key performance indicators. The report also forms the basis for quarterly monitoring returns to the GLA.
Recommendation That the report be received.
Page 97 1 of 73 Introduction/Background 1. This is the financial and service performance monitoring report for the full 2010/11 financial year. It provides information on financial performance against budget together with a commentary on key performance indicators. The report also forms the basis for quarterly monitoring returns to the GLA. The first part of this report reviews performance against key performance indicators set out in the London Safety Plan 2010/2013. The second part of this report reviews financial performance for the 2010/11 financial year.
Performance monitoring 2. The information on 2010/11 performance is set out below, with comparative data for 2008/09 and 2009/10. The five year trend indicator reflects the change in performance since 2006/07. The three year headline targets set out in the Fourth London Safety Plan (LSP4) are highlighted in red . Five headline targets have stretch targets as shown in the last column of the table.
Table 1: Performance against key performance indicators, 2010/11 Hit 5 year On stretch 2010/11 trend target? target? 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10
Aim 1 : PREVENTION !! NI 49i : Primary fires 13,521 14,043 13,367 ! ! !
NI 49ii : Deaths arising from primary fires (10 yr average) 64 63 61 ! ! ! NI 49iii : Injuries arising from primary fires 1,070 808 888 ! ! ! NI 33 : Arson incidents (all deliberate fires) 9,914 6,688 6,784 ! ! LI 4 : Rubbish fire (deliberate & not known) 7,098 4,809 3,075 ! ! LI 1 : Dwelling fires (all) 6,634 6,924 6,731 ! ! ! LI 9 : Home fire safety visits completed by station staff 48,765 64,799 70,016 " ! LI 10 : Time spent by station based staff on community safety 10.22% 11.76% 11.96% " ! ! Aim 2 : PROTECTION !! LI 20 : Primary fires in non-domestic properties 2,940 3,213 3,098 # ! LI 23 : Fire safety inspections – all 12,895 15,023 15,129 " ! LI 24i : Fire safety inspections – % previously not visited 43.05% 56.47% 55.83% " ! ! LI 24i : Fire safety inspections – % high risk (of LI24i) - 26.24% 21.95% ! !! Aim 3 : RESPONSE !! LI 40i : Average arrival time – 1 st appliance (mm:ss) 05:35 05:28 05:34 # !! LI 40ii : Average arrival time – 2 nd appliance (mm:ss) 06:35 06:31 06:53 " ! ! LI 45 : False alarms – AFAs non-domestic buildings 32,965 31,767 29,960 ! ! ! LI 46 : Shut in lift releases 14.502 12,385 9,395 ! ! ! LI 43: 999 calls answered in 7 seconds 90.81% 90.45% 90.97% " ! ! Aim 4 : RESOURCES !! LI 61i : Undisputed invoices paid within 30 days 90.72% 96.20% 97.19% " ! ! LI 61ii : Undisputed SME invoices paid within 10 days 71.33% 83.97% 89.61% " ! ! LI 60i : Sickness – operational staff 3.82% 4.13% 4.95% " ! ! LI 60ii : Sickness – FRS staff 3.37% 3.35% 2.92% ! ! ! Aim 5 : PEOPLE !! LI 80i : Safety events reported under RIDDOR 205 191 190 ! !! Targets in red are three year headline targets !!
KEY " Numbers increasing, good performance trend ! Numbers decreasing, good performance trend " Numbers increasing, poor performance trend ! Numbers decreasing, poor performance trend # No discernable trend !On tar get or better !Within 10 per cent of the tar get !Off tar get Page 98 2 of 73 Performance highlights
3. Performance during 2010/11 was good and for the 22 key performance targets displayed on page 2, more than half (12 – 54 per cent) were successfully achieved (green) with a further five (23 per cent) within 10 per cent of target (amber). Only 5 targets (23 per cent) more than 10 per cent away from target (red). In addition, two stretch targets were achieved, with performance within 10 per cent for two further stretch targets.
4. Performance in Q4 recovered following the period of FBU industrial action during Q3 which had an adverse impact. Of the three indicators most directly impacted (time spent on community safety activity, home fire safety visits and attendance times), all three saw the end of year targets successfully achieved.
5. More detailed information for the key indicators for 2010/11 is set out in detail in appendix 1, but highlights are as follows: The total number of primary fires during 2010/11 is an improvement compared to 2009/10, and represents a target successfully achieved. In addition, the total number of fires continues to fall and remains below 30,000 for a third successive year. Performance on deliberate fires in 2010/11 remains good; whilst not green in terms of outcome, is within 10 per cent of a very challenging target; 6,784 incidents in 2010/11 is similar to the 2009/10 outturn figure, and a considerable improvement over 2008/09. Time spent on community safety activity by fire station staff in 2010/11 at 11.96 per cent is a further improvement compared to 2009/10 and is another target achieved. Performance has remained above the 10 per cent target consistently, and continues to improve over the longer term. As with community safety hours, the number of home fire safety visits at 70,016 for 2010/11 is well above target despite performance in Q3 being impacted by the FBU industrial action; performance recovered during Q4 and performance exceeded the target by eight per cent. Using the 10 year average, deaths in all fires (61 for the period to 2010/11) is three per cent lower than the 2009/10 outturn and within target. There were 62 fire fatalities in 2010/11 with 45 in accidental fires in the home. Details of fire fatalities in Q4 are set out in paragraphs 6 to 10, and in appendix 2. Overall, the number of fire safety inspections in 2010/11 of premises that fall within the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) at 15,129 is a small improvement compared to the outturn for 2009/10, and is another target achieved. Inspections in premises previously not visited (a priority set in the Fire Safety Regulation strategy) now account for 56 per cent of all visits conducted although this was outside the target.
The speed of attendance to incidents by both first and second fire appliances was slightly slower during 2010/11 largely due to the FBU industrial action during Q3. Despite this however, both of these measures represent targets successfully achieved. On average a first appliance arrived at an incident in 5 minutes 34 seconds and a second appliance in 6 minutes 53 seconds. Unwanted calls to false alarms caused by automatic fire alarms in non-domestic buildings (AFAs) fell to 29,960 in 2010/11; this target was achieved and performance is now below 30,000 for the first time. Performance continues to show the impact of call filtering which was introduced in early July 2009. Shut in lift calls attended also continues to fall; the Brigade attended 9,395 in 2010/11. This is a significant improvement over the 2009/10 outturn figure (24 per cent lower) and is another target achieved. This shows particularly the impact of call filtering, with over 2,300 calls not attended during 2010/11, and charging where the Brigade makes repeat attendances which generated income in excess of £130k (excluding VAT) during 2010/11. Sickness am ongst uniformed operational staff stands at 4.95 per cent, compared to the target of 3.6 per cent for 2010/11. Sickness for non-uniformed (including FRS) staff has improved to 2.92 per cent
Page 99 3 of 73 and is a target achieved. Performance has also improved compared to the 2009/10 end of year figure (3.35 per cent).
The number of safety events reported to government under the RIDDOR 1 continue to fall; the figure of 190 for the 2010/11 is a small improvement over the 2009/10 outturn but remains off target.
Fire fatalities in Quarter 4 6. Details of those people who died as a result of fire during the quarter are set out in appendix 2. The information in the appendix (and below) is about those people who die as a result of fire and does not include those who may be found dead after a fire but have died of other causes. Between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2011 (Q4) there were 21 fire fatalities. Table 2 shows all deaths due to fire and fire deaths in accidental fires in the home which are the focus of community safety activity (including home fire safety visits).
Table 2: Deaths reported at fires, deaths due to fire and deaths in accidental fires in the home Jan 2011 Feb 2011 Mar 2011 Total Total deaths due to fire 8 7 6 21 Total deaths in accidental fires in the home 7 4 6 17
7. The key characteristics of the 21 people who died as a result of fire in quarter 4 are shown in table 3 below.
Table 3: Summary of fire deaths in quarter 4, 2010/11 Jan 2011 Feb 2011 Mar 2011 Total Deaths due to fire % Age under 20 0 0 0 0 0 over 60 4 3 1 8 38 Gender male 6 4 3 13 62 female 2 3 1 6 29 Time of call day 09:00 to 21:00 3 5 0 8 38 night 21:00 to 09:00 5 2 6 13 62 Motive accidental 6 0 3 9 42 deliberate 2 4 0 6 29 not known 0 3 3 6 29 Property type dwelling 7 6 6 19 90 non-residential 0 1 0 1 5 outdoor 1 0 0 1 5
8. The characteristics of those who died in a fire during the fourth quarter are consistent with the pattern over the last few years. The following key points should be noted. 1. Flats represent the largest proportion of dwelling types in London and consequently the largest proportion of historical fatalities have occurred in flats. In keeping with this trend, during Q4, 10 of the 21 fire fatalities occurred in a flat (either purpose built or converted). 2. Historically, smoking materials account for around one in every 5 fire fatalities; a trend continued during Q4. 3. No one factor is totally indicative of higher risk. Using tools such as the Incident Risk Analysis Toolkit (iRAT), the Brigade continues to target preventative work at those people whose lifestyle would place them at a higher risk of the likelihood of fire. 4. Of the 21 fatalities in Q4, at least five could be considered vulnerable individuals in some way. Aside from age, pre-existing medical conditions were present in at least five of the fatalities. The data does highlight
1 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995
Page 100 4 of 73 cases where, potentially, more could have been done with partners to identify individuals at risk. For example, the 85 year old man who died in Haringey (28 February 2011) had only been visited by his carers 30 minutes prior to the discovery of the fire. ! 5. In addition, smoke alarms were not present at all, or disabled in some way (for example battery removed) for at least five of the fatalities. !
9. A topic report on deaths 2 in accidental fires in the home set out the circumstances of those people who have died as a result of accidental fires in the home over the last eight years; a copy of this report is available from the clerk. 10. There is a case review process in place to look at each fire fatality (as explained in appendix 2). The Brigade is making further efforts to establish more effective partnership arrangements with other agencies, and ever more sophisticated methods must be adopted to reduce either the risk or the consequences of fire. This includes communicating with all London councils to help identify and locate people known to be at risk.
Financial summary 11. The final outturn for 2010/11 of £414,784k is £22,516k less than the approved budget of £437,300k. The reasons for the underspend are set out in this report, which also identifies the extent to which the underspend has been reflected in the savings agreed by the Authority for the 2011/12 budget in March and June 2011 (i.e. both the savings agreed as part of the final budget report in March and the in year savings agreed by the Authority at its Annual General Meeting in June).
12. The summary position is set out in Table 4, which shows the summary level of service and pension expenditure in 2010/11 compared with the approved budget. The table also shows a comparison between the final outturn for the year and the forecast outturn at the end of December 2010 (quarter 3). The reasons for the movement between the forecast as at the end of December and the final outturn are covered in summary at paragraph 16 and set out in detail in the report.
2 Topic report “Fire fatalities in accidental fires in the home” (PMC73), February 2010
Page 101 5 of 73 Table 4: Summary Revenue expenditure 2010/11
Annual Outturn at Outturn Outturn Forecast Movement Budget Q4 Variance Variance Outturn between % Variance variance at Q3 figures
£000's £000's £000's £000's Service Expenditure Staff Costs 343,504 333,156 (10,348) -3.0% (7,605) (2,743) Other Staff Related 10,206 10,739 533 5.2% 186 347 Premises 30,200 28,145 (2,055) -6.8% (1,605) (450) Transport 24,567 24,641 74 0.3% 170 (96) Supplies & Services/Third Party 24,947 23,239 (1,707) -6.8% (1,356) (352) Revenue Service Expenditure 433,423 419,920 (13,503) -3.1% (10,210) (3,293)
External Financing Costs 12,109 11,418 (691) -5.7% (655) (36) Interest Receipts (250) (771) (521) 208.3% (500) (21) Other Income Received (31,054) (33,307) (2,253) 0 (1,434) (819)
Net Service Expenditure 414,229 397,260 (16,968) (0) (12,799) (4,169)
Firefighters' Pension Expenditure 17,172 18,406 1,235 7.2% 0 1,235
Business Continuity 0 940 940 0.0% 927 13
Central Contingency Against Inflation 7,722 0 (7,722) -100.0% (6,239) (1,483)
Contributions to/from Reserves (314) (314) 0 0.0% 0 0
PFI Grant for Future Years (1,509) (1,509) 0 0.0% 0 0
Authority Total 437,300 414,784 (22,516) -5.1% (18,111) (4,405)
13. As previously reported, the outturn underspend is as a result of two main factors which account for £18,530k or 82% of the total.
14. The first is the impact of operational vacancies which has resulted in an underspend of £10,808k, partly as a result of the recruitment freeze implemented last year in anticipation of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review and the grant settlement for 2011/12 and 2012/13. A recruitment round for an additional 150 staff was launched on the 10 May and it is currently anticipated that there will be a total of 260 new staff recruited in 2011/12. However it should also be noted that the establishment for operational posts has been reduced by 133 posts for 2011/12 resulting in a saving of £6,707k. The underspend against the operational staff budget is also as a result of lower than anticipated employer’s pension contributions as a result of the changing balance between staff on the old and new schemes. The 2011/12 budget includes savings of £1,875k to reflect this.
15. The other main factor is as a result of lower than budgeted inflation, including the zero pay award for all staff groups, as reported in March, which has resulted in an underspend of £7,722k. An overall saving of £6,907k has been included in the 2011/12 revised budget to reflect this.
16. The final outturn is £4,405k higher than the forecast underspend as at the end of December 2010 which is also mainly as a result of these two main factors. The underspend in respect of operational staff increased by £3,151k as a result of an increase in vacancies in the last quarter of the financial year. The central contingency against inflation was also underspent by an additional £1,483k as a result of a review of the budget needed for LGPS pension payments which reflects the number of FRS staff opting not to join the pension scheme.
Page 102 6 of 73 17. The cause of the remaining £3,986k of the total underspend and the reasons for the movement since the forecast outturn as at the end of quarter three are set out in the following paragraphs. Variances of over 3% or £30k are detailed in Appendix 3 and further detailed commentary is provided in Appendix 4.
18. The outturn includes the total spend on business continuity for industrial action in 2010/11 of £940k. This relates both to preparation for industrial action and to spend on strike days. The spend is made up of spend on readiness and preparation of £305k (on items such as security, vehicle moves, alternative sites, advertising, legal advice) and spend on actual strike days of £635k (on items such as payments to the contractor and security). This is offset by deductions on pay of £314k, which is part of the operational pay underspend. Other underspends as a result of certain activities not going ahead during the period of action and are set out in more detail below. The total underspend as a result of the industrial action is £1,257, offset by the spend of £940k, making a net underspend of £317k.
19. The training budget underspent by £850k due to the postponement of some courses following industrial action. This underspend was £496k higher than forecast as at the end of December because of additional re- scheduling into 2011/12. Savings of £153k have been made against this budget in 2011/12.
20. The outturn spend on recruitment was £221k below budget reflecting a downturn in FRS recruitment activity and therefore lower spend on advertising and assessments. Savings of £217k have been made against this budget in 2011/12.
21. The outturn underspend of £475k against the compensation budget arose in the last quarter due to a re- evaluation, as part of the closing of accounts process, of the provision needed for potential damages and costs in claims yet to be finalised. As agreed as part of the March budget report savings compensation expenditure will be now funded from an earmarked reserve allowing this annual budget to be removed and making a saving of £1,330k.
22. As previously forecast, the property rates budget underspent by £810k due to the revaluation of unused appliance bays at eighteen stations. The rates outturn underspend was £261k higher than forecast at the end of December due to the reversal of a previous provision for rates that has been assessed as no longer needed as part of the closing of accounts process. The 2011/12 budget includes savings of £814k against the rates budget.
23. There is an underspend of £599k on other property services because of the previously reported review of the approach to providing temporary stations for the PFI project in order to reduce costs. Outturn underspend was higher than forecast by £252k as at the end of December because of additional underspend on the Property PFI project as a result of the delayed CLG approval for the project.
24. As previously reported, energy budgets underspent by £532k due to new contracts being completed at less than the expected renewal cost. This underspend is £156k higher than the forecast as at the end of December due to milder than expected weather in the last quarter. The 2011/12 budget includes savings of £307k for energy.
25. Vehicle running costs spend was £255k lower than budgeted because of lower than budgeted fuel prices for much of the year. The vehicle PFI unitary payment budget underspent by £363k. This was due to delays in the implementation of the Hose Layer Unit and BA Mobile Charging Unit and the effect of KPIs and abatements. The Hose Layer delay means that the full year effect of savings identified in the 2009/10 budget report of £467k in 2010/11 have not been achieved. The project is on track to deliver full year savings of £666k in 2011/12.
26. There was an underspend of £646k on clothing and laundry due to operational vacancies. This was £237k higher than forecast as at the end of December due to the increase in vacancy levels in the last quarter of 2010/11. Savings of £100k are included against this budget for 2011/12.
Page 103 7 of 73 27. The professional services budget underspent by £471k reflecting the procurement of financial and legal advisors to the Future Options for Training project on more favourable terms than anticipated. This is offset by additional expenditure on counsel fees as a result of the 7/7 bombings inquest. Savings of £218k are included in the 2011/12 budget.
28. The underspend of £399k on the telecommunications and radio budget relates to the delay to the start date of Airwave charges payable by the authority. There is a corresponding saving of £755k in the 2011/12 budget.
29. As previously reported, the cost of our external borrowing was £691k below budget due to reduced borrowing requirements as a result of slippage in the capital programme. This increase since December is a result of the outturn for 2009/10 being lower than anticipated at the time of setting the budget in March and takes account of the final outturn underspend on the 2010/11 programme as set out in paragraph 39 to 45 and Appendix 7. This budget has been reduced by this amount for 2011/12.
30. Income from insurance companies was higher than budgeted by £1,148k. As previously reported, this reflects current levels of declarations received and prior year adjustments. This budget will increase by £2,053k in 2011/12.
31. Interest earned on balances was £521k more than budgeted. As previously reported this reflects access to a higher average rate of return and longer term investments following a review of approved counter parties, investment periods and available funds. There is additional income of £558k included in the 2011/12 budget to reflect this.
32. Customer and client receipts income was £1,134k higher than budgeted due to LIFE income, costs awarded from legal prosecutions and income from shut in lifts charging. An income budget of £400k has been established in 2011/12 for income received from shut in lifts charging.
33. Overspends include £1,271k due to the early release costs of redundancies. The outturn is £471k higher than previously forecast as a result of final early release costs being higher than originally estimated by the LPFA. The vehicle pass through overspend of £522k consists of £370k for new EDBA and telemetry as agreed (FEP 1585), and £160k for accident repairs. The hydrants budget overspent by £163k due to water companies completing outstanding repairs. An earmarked reserve has been set up to smooth the impact of work on outstanding repairs in future years. The outturn overspend on computing of £161k is as a result of the relocation project to the new mobilising centre at Merton and is offset by new burdens grant funding.
34. Capitalised staff charges, which are a recharge from the revenue budget to the capital programme, were lower than the budget by £870k. This is because control room costs are no longer charged against the capital programme. The 2011/12 budget has been adjusted to reflect this.
35. The overspend on the firefighters’ pension scheme is because of making a provision in the final accounts of £1,235k following the latest National Fraud Initiative exercise which has identified pension underpayments for which the Authority may be liable. These relate to deductions made to reflect benefits paid by the Department for Work and Pensions which may not have been correctly notified to either the Authority or LPFA. Further work is required to assess the actual extent on any liability, hence the need to set up this provision. This is also the reason for the movement since the forecast at the end of December. This has been offset by an underspend on the ill health retirements element of the budget of £255k following a reduction in numbers from 12 to 6.
36. Table 5 below shows the position on reserves in the light of outturn, which reflects the position reported as part of the 2011/12 Budget Update presented to the Finance and Personnel Committee and Authority in June.
Page 104 8 of 73 Pension Firefighters' PFI Hydrants Compensation Maintenance Sustainability Salix Resilience London General Total
Table 5–Outturn Position on Reserves £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m Opening Balance at 31/3/10 1.771 0.631 0.000 0.000 1.500 0.055 0.314 1.980 43.348 49.599 Revenue Contribution to Capital (1.500) (3.600) (5.100) Salix Scheme application (0.314) (0.314) Outturn Variance 0.077 22.439 22.516 Energy Savings over target transferred to Sustainability/Salix Reserve 0.180 0.118 (0.298) 0.000 Transfer to Hydrants Reserve 1.500 (1.500) 0.000 Transfer to Compensation Reserves 3.000 (3.000) 0.000 Anticipated Balance at 31/3/11 1.771 0.631 1.500 3.000 0.000 0.235 0.195 1.980 57.389 66.701 Use of Reserves to support 2011/12 Budget (6.098) (6.098) Drawings from Earmarked Reserves (0.195) (0.195) Anticipated Balance at 31/3/12 1.771 0.631 1.500 3.000 0.000 0.235 0.000 1.980 51.291 60.408
2012/13 Budget Process
37. The Budget Update report presented to the Finance and Personnel Committee and the Authority in June set out the Mayor’s Budget Guidance for 2012/13 including the savings target for LFEPA of £20,485k. The paper also set out additional in year savings of £8,096k for 2011/12 which will realise £9,159k in a full year thus reducing the amount expected to be required to meet this target to £11,326k.
38. Detailed budget proposals for 2012/13 will be presented in September. As in previous years the budget review work carried out to inform these will include a detailed review of the final outturn for the previous year to establish the extent to which the identified underspends can be taken as permanent budget reductions. Members will be aware that the budget for 2011/12 includes total savings of £23,585k which reflects the £15,489k agreed as part of the final budget report presented in March and the additional £8,096k agreed in June. This compares to the final underspend of £22,444k for 2010/11 but further work will still be undertaken to see if additional savings are possible in light of the experience of the year just ended.
Capital Outturn 2010/11
39. The capital programme outturn is £13,146k, which is an underspend of £10,444k against the approved programme and which is a reduction of £1,055k since the forecast based on the position at the end of December.
Page 105 9 of 73 40. The main reasons for the 2010/11 underspend and comments on any movement in the projections since they were last reported are set out below, with detailed commentary in Appendix 7.
41. The West Norwood Fire Station rebuild has been delayed pending planning permission which has resulted in an underspend of £2,241k in 2010/11. The Walthamstow Fire Station rebuild was delayed due to the need to appoint a new subcontractor. In addition, inclement winter weather caused further delay. This has resulted in an underspend of £1,969k in 2010/11 and a revised completion date for the works is December 2011. Fire Safety work at Fire Stations has been re-profiled to allow finalisation of the scope and prioritisation of the works to be undertaken, as reported to the Finance and Personnel Committee in June (FEP 1745). There is an underspend of £1,082k in 2010/11. Business Continuity for the Property PFI Project was delayed pending confirmation of CLG funding, which resulted in an underspend of £1,074k. The works are anticipated to be completed by December 2011.
42. The underspend of £1,018k on Holloway Fire Station was because of delays in finalising requirements with the Metropolitan Police and reductions on tender prices. As reported to the Finance and Personnel Committee in June (FEP 1746), there is an underspend on the LR Vehicles – Yards and Forecourts programme of £903k, because of slippage in the original project timescales. The work has now been reprogrammed and will be kept within the overall programme budget.
43. The Telephone System Replacement underspent by £624k due to a delay in awarding the contract. This contract has now been awarded and will cost £250k, but will in effect be cost neutral after 3 years due to significant revenue savings in support and maintenance. This option will also reduce the capital requirement by £200k.
44. The Lewisham Fire Station Refurbishment underspent by £455k due to a delay in awarding the contract as additional information was required during tendering. The Mobile Work Systems project underspent by £355k due to changing the planned approach - extending the use of an existing system rather than developing an entirely new system. Window Replacements at Stations underspent by £278k due to lower than expected bids for the works.
45. There are two main reasons for the movement since the forecast based on December’s position – these are the additional underspend on Walthamstow Fire Station because of the additional delays due to bad weather of £431k, and the additional underspend of £295k on yards and forecourts, which has since been reprogrammed. Detailed comment on movements is provided in Appendix 7.
Deputy Head of Legal and Democratic Services comments 46. The Deputy Head of Legal and Democratic Services has reviewed the report and has no further comments.
Director of Finance and Contractual Services comments 47. This report is presented jointly by the Director of Finance and Contractual Services and there are no additional comments.
Environmental Implications 48. The Authority’s Environment Policy includes, amongst other things, a commitment to “Identify and reduce our impact on the environment, specifically in relation to our prime roles of attending incidents and providing fire safety to the community in London “.
49. The suite of performance indicators and service measures show how the Authority is achieving its service delivery objectives and a reduction in the different types of incidents it attends. Action being taken by the Brigade to prevent and reduce fires, special services and false alarms will also reduce the environmental impact of these incidents and the impact that attending incidents (appliance movements) has on the environment through reduced: Air-borne pollution associated with fires. Appliance movements so less diesel pollution.
Page 106 10 of 73 CO2 emissions (e.g. from vehicle fires and vehicle exhaust). Pollutants being released into the water course from run-off at incidents. 50. In addition, the suite includes specific performance indicators (LI 62) dealing with the use of water, electricity and gas, showing how well the Authority is achieving its objective of reducing its energy usage. There are also indicators relating to waste recycled (LI 63) and energy from renewable resources (LI 64).
Staff Side Consultations Undertaken 51. No staff side consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report.
Equalities Implications 52. The information provided from the performance indicator and service measures in the London Safety Plan allows Members and officers to focus on both operational and FRS staff groups in terms of numbers for both women and black and minority ethnic employees and our success in achieving our equalities objectives. As a key emergency service provider within one of the world’s most diverse cities, developing a workforce that is a true reflection of the community served has been, and will remain a key priority. At the end of Q4 2010/11 (end March 2011) there were 686 BME and 308 women uniformed operational staff in post; that is 11.75 per cent and 5.28 per cent (respectively); both figures are an improvement on the 2009/10 end of year figure.
53. Reaching London’s diverse communities is a key aspect of the Brigade’s community safety activity which is helping to drive down the number of fires and the casualties that result from fires. Our community safety strategy targets risk by addressing people’s lifestyle. This approach gives a broader understanding of the risks different groups face rather than focusing on a single factor such as a persons age or ethnicity. However, within the lifestyle groups which are the target for our home fire safety visits, both age and ethnicity are factors that are over-represented in these at risk groups. For 2010/11, the target for Home Fire Safety Visits (HFSVs) to be completed in high risk areas or with high risk people was 60 per cent and performance was 56 percent. Whilst not hitting the target, this still represents an extra 4,000 targeted HFSVs when compared to the previous financial year. In addition, performance continues to improve.
54. The Brigade’s Incident Management System (IMS) allows for the ethnicity of causalities (injuries and fatalities) of fires, and special service incidents, to be recorded, as well as for rescues; this data is available from November 2008 and is collected in line with the requirements of the national Incident Recording System (IRS). Ethnicity data is not available for about 13 per cent of casualties (fatal and non-fatal) at fire incidents and about 25 per cent of casualties (fatal and non-fatal) at special services. Ethnicity data for casualties from IMS has been analysed to see to what extent casualties reflect the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) population in London. Based on the 2001 census (revised), BAME people account for some 35 per cent of the London population currently; using this benchmark the incident data shows that BAME fatalities in fires accounted for 37 per cent of all fire casualties (fatal and non-fatal) in London and some 35 per cent of all special service casualties. These proportions are roughly consistent with the estimated 2010 BAME proportion of the London population.
55. It is likely that the over-representation of age and ethnicity in both the casualty data and the identification of our ‘at risk’ groups is closely associated with the distribution of deprivation in London. A study by National Statistics in 2006 ‘ Ethnicity and deprivation: a regional perspective ’ found that “… some ethnic groups were more likely to live in local areas that have been classed as among the more deprived in England…” and the association between fire and deprivation is well documented.
Page 107 11 of 73
List of Appendices to this report: 1. Performance against a number of key indicators for 2010/11 (quarter 4) 2. Fire fatalities – Q4 2010/11 3. Budget monitoring 2010/11 outturn 4. Commentary on variances 5. Update on 2010/11 Growth Bids 6. Key corporate financial performance indicators 7. Capital Programme 2010/11
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985
List of background documents
1. FEP 1513 2010/11 Budget 2. FEP 1575 Quarterly financial and service performance for the period ending June 2010 3. FEP 1630 Quarterly financial and service performance for the period ending September 2010 4. FEP 1701 Quarterly financial and service performance for the period ending December 2010 5. FEP 1541 The Fourth London Safety Plan 2010 – 2013
Proper officer Rita Dexter, Deputy Commissioner and Sue Budden, Director of Finance and Contractual Services
Contact officer Alison Ross Telephone 020 7587 1200 x31376 Email [email protected]
Page 108 12 of 73 Appendix 1
Performance against key indicators – position at end of 2010/11
Page within Appendix NI 49i Primary (serious) fires attended 14 NI 49ii Deaths in primary fires 16 NI 49iii Injuries (excluding precautionary checks) in primary fires 18
NI 33 Arson incidents (all deliberate fires) 20 LI 4 Rubbish fires - deliberate & unknown motive 22 LI 1 Primary fires in dwellings 24
LI 9 & LI 11 Home fire safety visits (HFSVs) by fire station staff & priority visits 26 LI 10 Time spent on community safety by fire station staff 28
LI 20 Primary fires in non-domestic buildings 30 LI 23 Fire safety inspections - all 32 LI 24i & 24ii Fire safety inspections - % premises previously not visited and high risk 34
LI 40i & LI 40ii Average arrival time at an incident - 1st & 2nd appliance 36
LI 45i False alarms due to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) in non-domestic buildings 38 LI 46i Shut in lift releases 40
LI 43 % Emergency (999) calls answered within 7 seconds 42
LI61i & LI 61ii Payment of undisputed invoices - 30 days & SME 44
LI 60i & LI 60iii Sickness - Operational uniformed staff & FRS staff 46 LI 80i Events reported under RIDDOR 48
Page 109 13 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Primary (serious) fires attended [NI 49i]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2007/08 15,075 14,979 14,720 14,403 14,323 14,338 14,279 14,239 14,121 14,016 13,962 13,889 14,766 2008/09 13,647 13,616 13,640 13,668 13,527 13,359 13,315 13,272 13,358 13,473 13,448 13,521 13,658 2009/10 13,669 13,836 13,948 13,967 14,139 14,269 14,332 14,186 14,131 14,121 14,049 14,043 13,200 2010/11 13,976 13,850 13,837 14,034 13,929 13,797 13,667 13,623 13,563 13,437 13,404 13,367 13,503 12,992
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
primary fires Target Stretch target
chart 2 : monthly 1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
primary fires
Page 110 14 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Primary (serious) fires attended [NI 49i]
Primary fires are more serious fires in a number of different types of property and in vehicles. These include homes, other residential buildings (like care homes), commercial premises and public buildings (like hospitals), as well as vehicles.
The total number of primary fires in 2010/11 (13,367) is an improvement over the 2009/10 outturn, and represents a target achieved. Of these primary fires, just over half (6,731) occured in the home. A further 3,098 (23 per cent) occured in non domestic buildings. The most signicant other proportion of primary fires were those involving road vehicles, of which there were 2,732 (20 per cent of all primary fires) during 2010/11.
The majority of boroughs are currently showing an improving trend although there are a handful i.e. Tower Hamlets, Hillingdon and Greenwich which show an increase; specific work is on-going in these boroughs to address this.
The rate of (primary) fires is considerably lower than any other metropolitan brigade area, and the number of fires in homes in London (per head of population) is at the lower end of the scale.
A new policy statement from the Brigade encouraging builders and developers to install sprinklers in schools, residential care homes, social housing and commercial premises has been published. The policy statement appears in a new booklet called “Think Sprinkler”. Over coming months, the Brigade will be sending copies of the booklet to architects, building managers, care home owners and social landlords. This will promote the benefits of sprinklers and encourage their installation.
A report (FEP 1657) was presented to the Community Safety Committee in January 2011 and the Performance Management Committee in March 2011 outlining the work that has been undertaken to develop a methodology to determine the severity of dwelling fires – the fire severity index. The index uses data collected via the Brigade’s Incident Management System to help determine whether a dwelling fire has led to significant damage to a level which implies the dwelling in uninhabitable after the fire. The Community Safety Committee agreed that a pilot project be run in a small number of London boroughs to test the Dwelling Fire Severity Index and establish the consequence of severe fires, using this evidence as the basis of discussion with the main borough social housing provider to increase awareness of fire safety for their tenants.
Page 111 15 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Deaths arising from primary fires [NI 49ii]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2008/09 64 64 64 - 2009/10 62 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 63 - 2010/11 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 61 NOTE: Theses figures and the targets are based on ten year rolling averages.
chart 1: rolling ten yearly average 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-09 Aug-10
fire fatalities fire fatalities target
chart 2: monthly data 16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Page 112 16 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Deaths arising from primary fires [NI 49ii]
Because fire death is a very low occurring event and numbers are subject to fluctuation, the target and performance are expressed as an annual average using ten years data (table and chart 1). The actual numbers of fires deaths each month is shown in chart 2.
The number of fire deaths (61) for the 12 months ending March 2011 (averaged over ten years) is a small improvement over the previous financial year, although it does represent a target successfully achieved.
To mark National No Smoking day on 9 March, the Brigade reminded people of the dangers of smoking. One in three deaths that occur in accidental house fires is caused by cigarettes or other smoking materials such as matches and cigars. Last year 14 people lost their lives in house fires caused by smoking materials and 121 people were injured; since 2006 there have been 64 fatalities and around 700 injuries due to smoking materials.
All boroughs work extremely closely with their respective local authority to protect the most vulnerable people and reduce fire deaths, for example a ‘Fatal Fires’ report on all fatal fire incidents over the past 10 years in Camden has been compiled. The report has provided direction for community safety campaigns, and when combined with the ‘Camden Accidental Fires Risk Analysis’ report, has been used to initiate a Life Channel Community awareness campaign.
Page 113 17 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Injuries (excl precautionary checks) arising from primary fires [NI 49iii]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 1,445 1,425 1,433 1,429 1,402 1,444 1,443 1,470 1,451 1,458 1,428 1,402 - 2008/09 1,400 1,378 1,351 1,353 1,311 1,268 1,226 1,188 1,139 1,114 1,077 1,070 1,274 2009/10 1,036 1,025 1,009 955 927 924 884 865 837 814 817 808 1,165 2010/11 802 819 797 814 830 826 850 833 847 856 863 888 794
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 1,600 20.00
18.00 1,400 16.00 1,200 14.00 1,000 12.00
800 10.00
8.00 600 6.00 400 4.00 200 2.00
0 0.00 Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
injuries arising from primary fires Target fires per injury
chart 2 : Monthly
160 30.00
140 25.00 120 20.00 100
80 15.00
60 10.00 40 5.00 20
0 0.00 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
injuries arising from primary fires fires per injury
Page 114 18 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Injuries (excl precautionary checks) arising from primary fires [NI 49iii]
This indicator measures the number of non-fatal injuries due to fire excluding precautionary checks (i.e. where a person is recommended to visit a hospital or doctor simply as a precaution). The number of injuries in 2010/11 (888) is a 10 per cent increase over the 2009/10 outturn figure.
Although the target was not met at the end of this performnace year, the data demonstrates that the rate of injuries is very much lower than at the beginning of the five year period. Taken together with the rate of primary fires, it can also be seen that the rate of decline in injuries is much faster. This could be a response to the impact of fire safety education, or be a reflection of smoke alarms warning of fires at their early stages, allowing householders to escape more quickly.
The emphasis continues to be to educate the community in the prevention, detection and escape fire safety message. In order to publicise this message, a range of community safety initiatives, e.g. Home Fire Safety Visits, are targeted at those people and areas known to be at higher risk of fire.
The Brigade has used National No Smoking Day and National Chip Week to remind people of the dangers of smoking and of fat fryers and chip pans and the numbers of deaths and injuries these types of fires cause. Those in student accommodation have been targeted as a key group.
In addition, the Brigade has published ‘Think Sprinkler’ which will be sent to architects, building managers, care home owners and social landlords. This will promote the benefits of sprinklers and encourage their installation.
Page 115 19 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Arson incidents (all deliberate fires) [NI 33]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 15,969 15,840 15,440 14,362 13,874 14,010 13,988 14,037 13,963 13,817 13,895 13,727 15,673 2008/09 13,055 12,975 13,019 13,040 12,793 12,383 12,180 11,332 11,007 10,659 10,179 9,914 13,667 2009/10 9,543 9,168 8,601 7,993 7,647 7,290 7,013 7,007 6,913 6,855 6,780 6,688 9,846 2010/11 6,692 6,637 6,759 7,198 7,199 7,069 6,810 6,739 6,712 6,678 6,720 6,784 6,617
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
arson incidents arson incidents target
chart 2 : monthly 1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
Page 116 20 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Arson incidents (all deliberate fires) [NI 33]
This indicator includes both primary (serious) and secondary (minor) fires; some 54 per cent of all arson incidents are secondary fires.
The number of arson incidents (i.e. fires of deliberate motive) for the 12 months ending March 2011 (6,784) means that volumes have remained fairly consistent throughout 2010/11. The Brigade remains within 10 per cent of a very challenging target and continues to look at ways to further reduce the incidence of deliberate fire setting.
In March, the Brigade warned that nearly two thirds of new or refurbished schools planned for the capital have not been built with sprinklers installed. Every year, one in eight schools suffers a serious arson attack. The cost of school fires is around £65 million with London accounting for over a third of the cost. As well as having a huge financial impact, these fires cause disruption to students, teachers and families and can have a devastating effect on the wider community.
Borough Commanders have a range of tools that they can use to tackle arson at a borough level. There is a wealth of activity being carried out demonstrating that by working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police, with local councils and community groups, the Brigade can have a real impact on driving down arson. Removing potential arson targets is a key part of this activity. For example, in Merton, Lewisham and Kingston the Brigade has used Community Payback participants to clear rubbish and remove the source of potential deliberate fires. This has been particularly useful to clear abandoned tyres on open land, a common source of deliberate fires; and for post incident clear up, which is particularly valuable in terms of restoring community assets.
There are examples from every borough of activity like this going on to address low level arson in particular and through the combined efforts of every Borough Arson Liaison Officers, the Arson Task Force Practitioners and station staff, boroughs are working hard to maintain the low levels of deliberate fires across London.
Page 117 21 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Rubbish fires - deliberate and motive 'not known' [LI 4]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2007/08 9,280 9,247 9,086 8,879 8,982 9,197 9,331 9,472 9,409 9,342 9,495 9,391 2008/09 8,960 9,020 9,094 9,136 8,904 8,618 8,440 7,797 7,683 7,518 7,197 7,098 2009/10 6,941 6,742 6,431 6,099 5,978 5,815 5,595 5,451 5,259 5,144 4,990 4,809 6,621 2010/11 4,678 4,479 4,345 4,247 4,025 3,741 3,450 3,369 3,274 3,209 3,158 3,075 5,286 4,963
chart 1 : rolling 12 months
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10 Rubbish fires Target Stretch target
chart 2 : Monthly 1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
Rubbish fires
Page 118 22 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Rubbish fires - deliberate and motive 'not known' [LI 4]
Most outdoor fires involve rubbish or refuse. The Community Safety Strategy targets these fires, as they represent a significant workload for the Brigade. Rubbish fires where the motive is "not known" (rather than "deliberate") are included as part of this indicator. A 'stretch' and normal target was set for this indicator as art of the Fourth London Safety Plan (LSP4).
As can be seen from the rolling 12 month figures (3,075 for the 12 months ending March 2011), the numbers have been steadily falling year on year; over the last five years, performance has improved by nearly 60 per cent. The monthly graph however, does show a consistent pattern, with volumes increasing into the summer, before tailing off again in the autumn
Rubbish fires vary from cigarettes dropped in waste bins to fires on open land that can lead to much wider and extensive grass fires. Rubbish fires can also result from fly tipping and household waste abandoned on common land. The Brigade is working in partnership with local authorities to encourage regular collection of larger items that might be abandoned. This happens in Harrow where every 6-8 weeks skips are provided by the council expressly for this purpose. Redbridge does something similar under the ‘Big Clean’ banner. These approaches discourage fly tipping and keep potential sources of deliberate fires, such as sofas, off areas of open land where previously they may have been dumped.
Work in Westminster, where there was a series of rubbish fires around the West End, resulted in the council reviewing its licensing policy for rubbish receptacles. The result of which was so to make it easier to provide them outside individual venues with their use and maintenance picked up under responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Previously rubbish had just been dumped and no one took any responsibility and it was a target for deliberate firesetting.
These are just a few examples of work being carried out at borough level to remove the rubbish before it becomes a target for deliberate fire setting.
One of the four public campaigns taking place during 2011 is a rubbish fire campaign. It compliments the work of borough commanders in increasing refuse collections by focusing on promotion and advice on how to keep London clear of fly-tipping and fire hazards.
Page 119 23 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Primary fires in dwellings [LI 1]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2007/08 6,941 6,934 6,841 6,751 6,739 6,773 6,746 6,760 6,657 6,622 6,609 6,600 - - 2008/09 6,570 6,581 6,623 6,621 6,564 6,523 6,519 6,522 6,588 6,653 6,632 6,634 6,584 - 2009/10 6,677 6,718 6,718 6,744 6,796 6,834 6,861 6,830 6,874 6,892 6,879 6,924 6,390 - 2010/11 6,890 6,874 6,885 6,956 6,950 6,927 6,922 6,886 6,815 6,746 6,745 6,731 6,618 6,403
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Dwelling fires Target Stretch target
chart 2 : Monthly 700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
Page 120 24 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Primary fires in dwellings [LI 1]
The major component part of primary fires are dwelling fires, which although over target (6,731 from 6618), is reducing and was a 5% (342) improvement on outturn.
Whilst over target, volumes have reduced during the third and fourth quarters of 2010/11, and current performance is a 5% improvement over the outturn for 2009/10, with 18 boroughs either achieving their target or improved their performance from 2009/10.
Notable successes are in the NW however there remain issues predominantly either side of the Thames in the east i.e. Newham and Tower Hamlets north of the Thames and Lambeth, Greenwich, Lewisham, and Southwark on the south side.
The Brigade used National Chip Week (21 – 27 February 2011) to warn people of the dangers of fat fryers and chip pans. Over the past five years over 2,800 accidental fires in Londoner’s homes were caused by chip pans. Four out of ten chip pan fires result in death or injury, kitchen fires account for six out of ten fires in people’s homes.
The Brigade’s chip safety campaign forms part of our kitchen fire safety campaign COOKSAFE, which was launched last September.
In January, the Brigade reminded people of the dangers of posed by candles and tealights following a fire in West Drayton, Hillingdon in which a house was gutted.
Page 121 25 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Home fire safety visits (HFSVs) by station based staff [LI 9] HFSVs in high risk areas/for high risk people [LI 11]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 37,615 37,600 38,004 38,329 38,941 39,429 40,306 40,865 41,933 43,275 44,413 44,649 40,250 2008/09 45,140 46,230 47,028 48,052 48,911 49,661 50,331 50,630 51,317 51,409 49,814 48,765 40,250 2009/10 49,351 50,292 51,533 53,523 54,578 55,819 57,233 59,706 61,093 62,554 64,263 64,799 60,000 2010/11 66,220 67,779 68,736 69,090 70,128 70,275 68,404 66,120 65,010 65,446 67,037 70,016 63,000
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 80,000 100%
70,000 80% 60,000
50,000 60%
40,000
40% 30,000
20,000 20% 10,000
0 0% Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
HFSV HFSV target % High risk visits % High risk visits target
chart 2 : monthly 9,000 100%
7,500 80%
6,000 60%
4,500
40% 3,000
20% 1,500
0 0% Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
HFSV % High risk visits
Page 122 26 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Home fire safety visits (HFSVs) by station based staff [LI 9] HFSVs in high risk areas/for high risk people [LI 11]
After the drop in HFSVs undertaken during the third quarter, numbers have once again picked up. 70,016 for the 12 months ending March 2011 represents both a target successfully achieved, and an eight per cent improvement over the previous year.
25 boroughs achieved their target, with eight were very close; boroughs in the NW then the SE were the most successful at meeting their targets. All boroughs aimed to carryout 60 per cent of their HFSVs in high risk areas or to people defined as being most at risk of fire.
Work has been undertaken with Haringey Social Services to generate a pilot scheme focusing on the vulnerable elderly automatically generating HFSV referrals.
Havering has taken part in a "Big Society" launch on the Briar Road Estate in Harold Hill as part of Baroness Newlove's new deals for communities, whereby along with others they have agreed to neighbourhood agreements/contracts to the level of service they will provide. As part of this, they have canvassed the whole estate which is predominantly P1 and offered community safety advice as well as collating numerous HFSV referrals.
In addition to HFSVs carried out by station based staff, some HFSVs (8,797 in 2010/11) were carried out by our partners funde d by a Government grant which has nearly been fully utilised which means that the number of such HFSV partnerships is reducing.
Page 123 27 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Time spent on community safety by station staff [LI 10]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 9.59% 9.61% 9.70% 9.70% 9.81% 9.91% 10.02% 10.09% 10.19% 10.24% 10.20% 10.10% 8.00% 2008/09 10.22% 10.32% 10.42% 10.56% 10.61% 10.58% 10.56% 10.54% 10.55% 10.54% 10.37% 10.22% 8.00% 2009/10 10.28% 10.33% 10.38% 10.49% 10.54% 10.67% 10.83% 11.09% 11.23% 11.42% 11.62% 11.76% 10.00% 2010/11 11.86% 12.00% 12.06% 12.12% 12.26% 12.33% 12.11% 11.78% 11.66% 11.70% 11.81% 11.96% 10.00%
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
0% Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
% time on CFS % CFS target
chart 2 : monthly
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
0% Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
% time on CFS
Page 124 28 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 1: Prevention Time spent on community safety by station staff [LI 10]
The percentage of time spent on community safety activity by fire station staff for continues to be above target; 11.96 per cent for the 12 months ending March 2011 is a target successfully achieved and shows considerable success in maintaining the momentum of community safety initiatives (including home fire safety visits), despite the recent FBU industrial action.
The effects of the tightening budgets are being felt. For example, in Camden the community partnership is reorganising and refocusing on core community safety issues, primarily crime.
In Hounslow successful partnership work was carried out between fire crews, Fire Safety Team, LB Hounslow’s area-based community safety staff and Environmental Health department to reduce the risk posed by derelict or empty buildings to firefighters and the public.
Havering received £15,000 in Q4 which allowed them to run an additional four LIFE courses. They also received £105,625 Reward Grant for achieving their fire safety targets for Local Area Aagreement (LAA) 1 from the government. The money will enable the Brigade to continue with a high level of LIFE courses in the area and seven are planned this year.
Page 125 29 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Primary fires in non-domestic buildings [LI 20]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2007/08 3,271 3,274 3,205 3,092 3,034 3,032 3,018 3,035 3,043 3,015 3,002 2,955 - - 2008/09 2,836 2,802 2,827 2,903 2,879 2,837 2,869 2,829 2,834 2,873 2,899 2,940 2,801 2009/10 3,007 3,076 3,127 3,106 3,163 3,231 3,249 3,216 3,194 3,199 3,183 3,213 2,636 2010/11 3,189 3,154 3,153 3,203 3,188 3,153 3,116 3,144 3,172 3,142 3,123 3,098 2,726 2,493
PRIMARY FIRES - NON DOMESTIC BUILDINGS - RRO APPLICABLE Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2008/09 2,477 2,458 2,468 2,528 2,508 2,468 2,487 2,458 2,471 2,508 2,547 2,576 2009/10 2,620 2,662 2,701 2,699 2,742 2,798 2,822 2,792 2,765 2,775 2,754 2,791 0 2010/11 2,778 2,770 2,768 2,767 2,770 2,758 2,725 2,756 2,778 2,742 2,718 2,684 0
4,000 chart 1 : rolling 12 months
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Feb-09 Feb-08 Apr-10 Apr-09 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07 non domestic primary fires RRO fires target stretch target
chart 2 : monthly 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
non domestic primary fires RRO fires
Page 126 30 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Primary fires in non-domestic buildings [LI 20]
non d omest ic pr imary fi res RRO fi res
Page 127 30 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Primary fires in non-domestic buildings [LI 20]
Non-domestic buildings include a wide range of buildings/structures including offices, educational buildings, leisure centres, and hospitals, but also garages, and sheds. Facilities providing residential care (e.g. for children or older people) are also counted as non-domestic buildings. Whilst this indicator is designed to measure the impact of the Brigade’s regulatory fire safety activity on fires in non-domestic property, nearly 13 per cent of the fires (just over 400) are not in buildings subject to the Regulatory Reform Order (RRO) but are classified as non-domestic buildings by CLG. Additional data on both charts shows the numbers of fires in buildings subject to the RRO.
The number of fires in non-domestic buildings has remained fairly consistent over the last five years. The number of fires 12 months ending March 2011 (3,098), whilst lower than the 2009/10 outturn performance, remains in line with this longer term trend. On a monthly basis fires fell increased during March 2011 and this is consistent with primary fires overall (of which fires in the non-domestic property are a constituent part).
Page 128 31 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection All fire safety inspections [LI 23] and enforcement notices served [SM 21]
LI 23 - ALL FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 12,048 11,767 11,133 10,687 10,321 10,172 10,745 11,037 11,188 11,456 11,719 11,827 14,350 2008/09 12,733 12,209 12,527 13,045 13,329 13,587 13,656 13,546 13,656 13,457 13,063 12,895 13,600 2009/10 12,733 12,731 13,027 12,954 12,909 12,935 12,900 13,234 13,393 13,806 14,479 15,023 15,000 2010/11 15,133 15,133 15,144 15,102 15,203 15,264 15,157 15,296 15,377 15,263 15,090 15,129 13,050 SM 21 - ENFORCEMENT NOTICES SERVED Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2009/10 916 903 900 874 893 891 878 880 901 868 857 828 - 2010/11 817 787 768 749 702 709 682 661 614 592 588 615 -
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 20,000
16,000
12,000
8,000
4,000
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Inspections Inspections target Enforcement notices served
chart 2 : monthly 1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Inspections Enforcement notices served
Page 129 32 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection All fire safety inspections [LI 23] and enforcement notices served [SM 21]
Since April 2007, the number of inspections has increased by nearly 26 per cent. Inspections completed for the 12 months ending March 2011 (at 15,129) is both a further improvement over the 2009/10 outturn, and a target successfully achieved.
Successful prosecutions this quarter include:
• Punch Taverns who have been ordered to pay £27,481 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation. They admitted guilt on seven contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
• A landlord has received a suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to four breaches of fire safety law. He was given a six months prison sentence to be served concurrently on each of the four offences, suspended for 18 months. He was also ordered to pay over £10,000 in costs. Between 24 June 2008 and 23 February 2009 Hillingdon Council had contact with the landlord. They explained that the house he rented out on Lansbury Drive in Hayes needed a number of building and fire safety improvements. On 10 March 2009, the Brigade was called to a fire at the property. Following the fire a joint investigation was carried out by the Brigade and Hillingdon Council and they found no fire alarms or detection in the common areas of the property, inadequate fire doors and that no fire risk assessment had been carried out, which would have highlighted these shortcomings. On 11 March 2011, the landlord appeared at Harrow Crown Court where he pleaded guilty to contraventions of the RRO: (a) one count of failing to have carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, contrary to article 9(1); (b) one count of failing to equip premises with fire detection, contrary to article 13(1)(a); and (c) two counts of failing to ensure premises are evacuable, contrary articles 14(2)(b).
Page 130 33 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Fire safety inspections - % premises not previously visited [LI 24i] and premises which are high risk [LI 24ii]
LI 24i - Percentage of premises not previously visited Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 42.43% 42.47% 42.73% 42.25% 42.10% 41.68% 41.47% 41.56% 41.86% 42.89% 43.61% 44.41% 2008/09 44.92% 44.93% 44.63% 43.82% 43.48% 43.14% 43.20% 43.99% 44.02% 43.84% 43.37% 43.05% 2009/10 43.36% 44.07% 45.14% 46.62% 48.15% 49.81% 50.67% 51.66% 52.32% 53.87% 55.51% 56.47% 56.67% 2010/11 57.27% 57.78% 57.59% 57.62% 57.44% 57.25% 57.45% 56.87% 56.60% 55.92% 55.35% 55.83% 59.00%
LI 24ii - Percentage of premises not previously visited which are high risk Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2009/10 23.80% 23.99% 24.05% 24.79% 24.86% 25.62% 26.35% 26.90% 27.12% 26.69% 26.15% 26.24% 2010/11 26.05% 25.89% 26.11% 25.87% 25.46% 25.36% 24.83% 23.76% 23.87% 23.66% 23.42% 21.95% 28.00%
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Inspections - % premises not previously visited target - inspections high risk target - high risk
chart 2 : monthly 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
% Inspections - premises not previously visited high risk
Page 131 34 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 2: Protection Fire safety inspections - % premises not previously visited [LI 24i] and premises which are high risk [LI 24ii]
As noted in the commentary on LI 23 (all fire safety inspections), the focus of fire safety regulation activity is to target premises not previously visited. Once these have been audited, they can be assigned a risk score which will determine their future re-inspection frequency.
High risk premises attract a fixed term re-inspection frequency, but medium to low risk premises are inspected using a randomly selected sample. Given the high number of premises still to be inspected, this targeted approach allows the Brigade to make best use of its resources.
LI 24ii is intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of targeting fire safety inspections at high risk premises. Local fire safety teams develop an annual plan which sets out how the team will target those premises that have previously not been visited.
Last year CLG commissioned consultants to consider options for how FRAs may be able to evaluate the impact of their regulatory fire safety activities to see how they contribute to the reduction in fires, deaths and casualties. The report was published in December 2010. The scope of the CLG review was mainly enforcement activities connected with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005 but also included associated activities such as the provision of advice, consultations and arson prevention in premises which fall within the scope of the Order.
The review made three recommendations, pilot and further elaborate evaluation methods; improve the quality of premises data; develop and trial evaluation tools. Information Management and Fire Safety Regulation will work together to develop a quantitative evaluation tool based on the findings of the CLG report. In addition, Fire Safety Regulation is to re-introduce a customer survey questionnaire.
On 23 March 2011, Redbridge borough team and the council hosted a reception for landlords and letting agents to forge stronger links and to provide important information to prevent fires and explain their responsibilities under RRO. A recent review of fires within the borough identified some Houses in Multiple Occupation that had not complied with licensing conditions.
Page 132 35 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Average 1st appliance arrival time [LI 40i] & Average 2nd appliance arrival time [LI 40ii]
LI 40i - AVERAGE ARRIVAL - 1st APPLIANCE Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 05:31 05:31 05:31 05:29 05:29 05:29 05:30 05:31 05:30 05:30 05:31 05:32 - 2008/09 05:33 05:34 05:35 05:36 05:36 05:36 05:35 05:35 05:35 05:36 05:36 05:35 06:00 2009/10 05:34 05:33 05:33 05:32 05:31 05:32 05:32 05:32 05:32 05:31 05:29 05:28 06:00 2010/11 05:28 05:27 05:25 05:25 05:24 05:23 05:25 05:27 05:32 05:32 05:32 05:34 06:00
LI 40ii - AVERAGE ARRIVAL - 2nd APPLIANCE Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 06:31 06:31 06:32 06:31 06:31 06:32 06:33 06:33 06:33 06:34 06:34 06:35 - 2008/09 06:35 06:36 06:37 06:37 06:37 06:36 06:36 06:35 06:35 06:36 06:36 06:35 08:00 2009/10 06:34 06:32 06:32 06:31 06:31 06:32 06:32 06:32 06:33 06:32 06:31 06:31 08:00 2010/11 06:31 06:32 06:30 06:30 06:30 06:30 06:35 06:41 06:48 06:51 06:53 06:53 08:00
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 08:00 07:30 07:00 06:30 06:00 05:30 05:00 04:30 04:00 03:30 03:00 02:30 02:00 01:30 01:00 00:30 00:00 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Average 2nd appliance arrival time Average 1st appliance arrival time Average 1st appliance arrival target Average 2nd appliance arrival target
chart 2 : monthly 08:30 08:00 07:30 07:00 06:30 06:00 05:30 05:00 04:30 04:00 03:30 03:00 02:30 02:00 01:30 01:00 00:30 00:00 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10 Average 2nd appliance arrival time Average 1st appliance arrival time
Page 133 36 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Average 1st appliance arrival time [LI 40i] & Average 2nd appliance arrival time [LI 40ii]
These indicators measure the average time it takes for a first and second fire engine to arrive at an emergency incident (LI 40i and 40ii respectively); the data excludes incidents which were not attended as an emergency (on 'blue light'). The increase in arrival times that started during Q3 of 2010/11, is a direct result of the FBU industrial action short of a strike where, due to a lack of officers, fewer appliances were available and 27 emergency fire crew capability (EFCC) appliances had been removed. The specific impact of the industrial action on attendance times was presented to Members in report FEP1711 (Report Back: Appliance Requirements) at the Finance & Personnel Committee in March 2011.
Nevertheless performance for 2010/11 for both indicators remains within the London-wide targets set (6 minutes for 1st appliance and 8 minutes for 2nd appliance). There is also a standard (LI 40iii) that a first appliance should arrive within 12 minutes on 95 per cent of occasions, and performance was well within this target at nearly 97 per cent for 2010/11.
The opening of Harold Hill fire station has resulted in a significant improvement of attendance times for Havering and surrounding boroughs during 2010/11.
Page 134 37 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response False alarms due to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) in non domestic buildings - attended [LI 45i] and not-attended [SM 45ii]
LI45i - FALSE ALARMS DUE TO AFAs IN NON-DOMESTIC BUILDINGS - ATTENDED Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2007/08 35,581 35,648 35,478 35,555 35,458 35,089 34,596 34,351 34,105 33,946 33,873 33,537 30,168 - 2008/09 33,582 33,477 33,260 33,022 32,842 32,913 32,796 32,731 32,778 32,908 32,902 32,965 30,874 - 2009/10 32,878 32,510 32,616 32,530 32,407 32,147 32,195 32,008 31,988 31,955 31,828 31,767 30,256 - 2010/11 31,606 31,649 31,494 31,224 31,260 31,239 30,959 30,798 30,727 30,431 30,109 29,960 31,212 27,509
SM45ii - FALSE ALARMS DUE TO AFAs IN NON-DOMESTIC BUILDINGS - NOT ATTENDED Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2009/10 69 188 302 428 521 585 672 750 839 - - 2010/11 909 981 1,051 1,046 1,011 954 947 944 997 1,028 1,058 1,078 - -
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 40,000
32,000
24,000
16,000
8,000
0 Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Feb-09 Feb-08 Apr-10 Apr-09 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
Non domestic AFAs not attended Target Stretch target
chart 2 : monthly 4,000
3,200
2,400
1,600
800
0 Jun-06 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Feb-07 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Apr-06 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Aug-06 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09
Non domestic AFAs Non domestic AFAs - not attended
Page 135 38 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response False alarms due to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) in non domestic buildings - attended [LI 45i] and not-attended [SM 45ii]
Over the last five years, the number of false alarms due to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) has reduced by nearly 16 per cent. The 29,954 false alarms due to AFAs in non-domestic buildings for 2010/11 is a further improvement over the 2009/10 outturn figure, a target successfully achieved, and the first time annual figures under 30,000 have been reported.
Both charts above also show the number of unattended calls due to call filtering.
The extension of call filtering by four hours commenced on 20 December 2010 with the anticipation that this would further reduce the number of AFAs. It would appear that for Q4 there has been a continued reduction in the number of AFAs. Although it is too early to determine the full impact of this change, the number of calls not attended in Q4 appears some 7 per cent more than in Q1 to Q3 before the change was made. Overall in 2010/11, just over 12,000 AFA calls were not attended due to call filtering.
In Hounslow 529 calls to non-domestic AFAs represents an historic low in the borough and was achieved by fire crews working directly with premises managers and with the Fire Safety Team based at Hounslow.
Page 136 39 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Shut in lift releases attended [LI 46i] and not attended [SM46ii]
LI46i - SHUT IN LIFT RELEASES - ATTENDED Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2007/08 14,902 14,889 14,717 14,359 14,458 14,474 14,579 14,568 14,612 14,589 14,582 14,434 14,366 - 2008/09 14,402 14,394 14,436 14,414 14,268 14,205 14,167 14,175 14,172 14,403 14,478 14,502 13,929 - 2009/10 14,545 14,518 14,559 14,667 14,747 14,557 14,205 13,821 13,542 13,188 12,776 12,385 13,529 - 2010/11 12,077 11,714 11,278 10,792 10,337 10,111 9,996 9,933 9,872 9,568 9,478 9,395 13,630 12,842
SM46ii - SHUT IN LIFT RELEASES - NOT ATTENDED Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target stretch 2009/10 324 647 885 1,049 1,192 1,324 1,512 - - 2010/11 1,679 1,877 2,091 2,304 2,498 2,395 2,275 2,209 2,262 2,303 2,317 2,333 - -
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 16,000
12,000
8,000
4,000
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Shut in lift releases not attended Target Stretch target
chart 2 : monthly 1,600
1,200
800
400
0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Shut in lift releases Shut in lift - not attended
Page 137 40 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Shut in lift releases attended [LI 46i] and not attended [SM46ii]
The number of shut in lift releases attended over the last five years has fallen by nearly 37 per cent, and continues to fall. There were 9,395 shut in lift releases attended for the 12 months ending March 2011, which is a further improvement over the 2009/10 outturn, and a target successfully achieved.
The Authority's policy in respect of these calls is about moving responsibility to building owners and managers to make their own adequate arrangements for lift releases, reducing the impact on the Brigade's operational resources. Repeat attendances to the same building are a particular problem and for 2010/11, just over 9 per cent of attended calls were to buildings with 10 or more attendances.
Results from call filtering by Control so far suggest a significant reduction in mobilisations with over 2,300 non-attended calls during 2010/11, and an estimated 2,000 fewer calls recieved in 2010/11. Where an attendance was made, 65 per cent were not attended as an emergency, in line with the policy.
The Community Safety Committee agreed (November 2010) to lower the charging threshold to 3 or more Brigade attendances. Under the new rules, from 1 April 2011, the Brigade will charge the owners of buildings £260 for attending non-emergency lift call outs from the third occasion firefighters are called to the same building in a twelve month period. Previously this charge was set at 10.
The total amount charged to different organisations from invoices raised in respect of shut in lift attendances during 2010/11 (inclusive of VAT*) were as follows:
EALING HOMES £305.50 ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES £305.50 HOMES FOR HARINGEY £312.00 BEALLE & COMPANY SOLICITORS £611.00 COMMUNITY TRUST HOUSING £611.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM £611.00 LONDON QUADRANT HOUSING ASS £611.00 NEWHAM HOMES MANAGEMENT £611.00 ASCHAM HOMES £617.50 METROPOLITAN HOUSING TRUST £617.50 LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING £624.00 A2 DOMINION GROUP £624.00 KENSINGTON & CHELSEA TMO £923.00 UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER £929.50 OLD FORD HOUSING ASSOCIATION £1,852.50 LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH £2,171.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH £2,457.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS £2,749.50 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAM £2,756.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH £3,685.50 CITY WEST HOMES £3,718.00 TRAVEL LODGE (UK) LTD £3,984.50 HAMMRSMITH AND FULHAM HOMES £6,110.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY £7,650.50 ENFIELD HOMES £7,683.00 POPLAR HARCA £9,490.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM £10,211.50 LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS £14,118.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN £23,933.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK £51,759.50 Grand Total £162,643.00
* VAT was 17.5% until December 2010 and 20% from January 2011
Page 138 41 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Shut in lift releases attended [LI 46i] and not attended [SM46ii]
Page 139 41 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Emergency (999) calls answered in 7 seconds [LI 43] and total calls handled by Control [SM 40]
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 85.82% 85.78% 85.48% 85.76% 85.98% 85.96% 85.61% 85.21% 85.17% 85.70% 85.78% 85.88% 85.00% 2008/09 86.29% 86.29% 86.52% 87.88% 88.32% 88.73% 89.33% 90.09% 90.33% 90.48% 90.62% 90.81% 86.00% 2009/10 91.03% 91.27% 90.73% 90.64% 90.43% 90.18% 90.11% 90.04% 90.06% 90.13% 90.36% 90.45% 91.00% 2010/11 90.45% 90.60% 91.34% 91.05% 91.37% 91.73% 91.65% 91.49% 91.33% 91.27% 91.13% 90.97% 91.00%
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 100% 300,000
250,000 80%
200,000 60%
150,000
40% 100,000
20% 50,000
0% 0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Answered in 7 seconds Number of calls [right hand scale] Target
chart 2 : monthly 100% 35,000
30,000 80% 25,000
60% 20,000
15,000 40%
10,000 20% 5,000
0% 0 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Apr-07 Feb-08 Apr-08 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-11 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Answered in 7 seconds Number of calls [right hand scale]
Page 140 42 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 3: Response Emergency (999) calls answered in 7 seconds [LI 43] and total calls handled by Control [SM 40]
Performance, whilst consistent during 2010/11, remains an improvement over 2009/10 and for the 12 months ending March 2011 (90.97%) represents around 10,000 more calls a year answered within seven seconds, compared to April 2007. This is especially good since there were a number of busy days during the quarter.
Improvement is set to continue following the recent shift change in Brigade Control where more staff are available during the bus y periods.
Page 141 43 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 4: Resources Undisputed invoices paid with 30 days [LI 61i] & Undisputed SME invoices paid within 10 days [LI 61ii]
LI 61i - INVOICE PAYMENTS 30 DAYS Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 81.57% 82.61% 83.69% 83.60% 84.65% 85.40% 86.21% 86.74% 87.23% 88.77% 89.41% 89.97% 87% 2008/09 89.67% 89.38% 88.99% 88.73% 88.91% 88.70% 88.87% 89.45% 89.83% 89.42% 89.67% 90.72% 90% 2009/10 91.41% 91.92% 92.66% 93.95% 94.29% 95.06% 95.43% 95.80% 95.85% 96.13% 96.40% 96.20% 95% 2010/11 96.46% 96.31% 96.29% 96.37% 96.43% 96.51% 96.47% 96.40% 96.39% 96.60% 96.84% 97.19% 96%
LI 61ii - SME INVOICE PAYMENTS 10 DAY S Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2008/09 60.82% 67.18% 68.74% 67.01% 68.01% 67.49% 67.83% 67.84% 69.38% 69.67% 69.92% 71.33% - 2009/10 72.49% 73.05% 73.96% 76.32% 77.32% 79.01% 80.81% 82.88% 83.33% 83.97% 84.02% 83.97% 90% 2010/11 84.79% 85.30% 85.53% 85.52% 85.55% 85.50% 85.26% 85.37% 85.61% 86.17% 88.25% 89.61% 90%
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Jun-10 Jun-09 Jun-08 Jun-07 Oct-10 Oct-09 Oct-08 Oct-07 Feb-11 Feb-10 Apr-10 Feb-09 Apr-09 Feb-08 Apr-08 Apr-07 Dec-10 Dec-09 Dec-08 Dec-07 Aug-10 Aug-09 Aug-08 Aug-07
30 day % paid SME % paid 30 day target SME target
chart 2 : monthly 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
30 day % paid SME % paid 30 day target SME target
Page 142 44 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 4: Resources Undisputed invoices paid with 30 days [LI 61i] & Undisputed SME invoices paid within 10 days [LI 61ii]
This indicator measures how quickly undisputed invoices are paid. LI 61i is for all invoices paid within 30 days and LI 61ii is for payment of invoices from small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) within 10 days. The SME target was part of the Mayor of London's economic recovery plan for London.
Performance over the last five years has shown an increasing proportion of invoice paid within 30 days with performance improving by around 19 per cent for all invoices. Payment of SME invoices within 10 days has improved over the last three years by over 47 per cent. For 2010/11, performance for 30 day payment represents a target successfully achieved; payment of SME invoices ended just below target, although it continues to improve.
Page 143 45 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 4: Resources Sickness - operational uniformed staff [LI 60i] and non-uniformed FRS staff [LI 60iii]
LI 60i - SICKNESS - UNIFORMED STAFF Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 4.55% 4.50% 4.48% 4.45% 4.45% 4.45% 4.44% 4.39% 4.39% 4.34% 4.29% 4.24% 4.60% 2008/09 4.23% 4.18% 4.11% 4.05% 3.93% 3.86% 3.81% 3.81% 3.80% 3.86% 3.80% 3.82% 4.00% 2009/10 3.79% 3.79% 3.79% 3.84% 3.92% 3.99% 4.07% 4.11% 4.11% 4.12% 4.13% 4.13% 3.60% 2010/11 4.16% 4.16% 4.14% 4.08% 4.02% 3.98% 4.00% 4.19% 4.66% 4.82% 4.88% 4.95% 3.60%
LI 60iii - SICKNESS - FRS STAFF Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar target 2007/08 3.25% 3.54% 3.55% 3.54% 3.51% 3.47% 3.46% 3.45% 3.44% 3.40% 3.36% 3.33% - 2008/09 3.38% 3.40% 3.43% 3.49% 3.49% 3.51% 3.50% 3.50% 3.56% 3.55% 3.40% 3.37% 3.05% 2009/10 3.30% 3.25% 3.22% 3.24% 3.27% 3.33% 3.36% 3.32% 3.19% 3.23% 3.29% 3.35% 3.00% 2010/11 3.24% 3.29% 3.25% 3.13% 3.04% 2.94% 2.90% 2.96% 3.04% 3.04% 3.02% 2.92% 3.00%
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0% Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Dec-10 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Aug-10
Uniformed sickness FRS sickness uniformed target FRS target
Page 144 46 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 4: Resources Sickness - operational uniformed staff [LI 60i] and non-uniformed FRS staff [LI 60iii]
Sickness amongst uniformed operational staff increased to at 4.95 per cent for the 12 months ending March 2011, above the 3.6 per cent target set, and the highest point for the last four years.
Sickness for non-uniformed (including FRS) staff at 2.92 per cent, is a target successfully achieved.
There is a detailed report on sickness on the agenda for the Committee today.
Page 145 47 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 5: People Safety events reported under RIDDOR [LI 80i]
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 target 2007/08 223 237 241 231 202 2008/09 233 247 220 206 207 2009/10 198 184 195 191 185 2010/11 177 178 176 190 171
chart 1 : rolling 12 months 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Q1 07/08 Q2 07/08 Q3 07/08 Q4 07/08 Q1 08/09 Q2 08/09 Q3 08/09 Q4 08/09 Q1 09/10 Q2 09/10 Q3 09/10 Q4 09/10 Q1 10/11 Q2 10/11 Q3 10/11 Q4 10/11
RIDDORs RIDDOR target
chart 2 : quarterly
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Q1 07/08 Q2 07/08 Q3 07/08 Q4 07/08 Q1 08/09 Q2 08/09 Q3 08/09 Q4 08/09 Q1 09/10 Q2 09/10 Q3 09/10 Q4 09/10 Q1 10/11 Q2 10/11 Q3 10/11 Q4 10/11
RIDDORs
Page 146 48 of 73 London Safety Plan - Aim 5: People Safety events reported under RIDDOR [LI 80i]
This indicator measures the number of injuries, deaths and dangerous occurrences recorded in the LFB Safety Event Recording Database. These events must be reported to the Health & Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).
Whilst a slight improvement over 2009/10, performance against this measure is a target just missed. Despite this, the general trend over the last 5 years remains one of improvement.
Page 147 49 of 73
APPENDIX 2 Fire fatalities (in primary fires), January 2011 to March 2011 (Q4)
Because of the seriousness of fatal fires, and the opportunity to learn from the events to minimise future occurrences, the Deputy Commissioner has established a fire review panel. A fatal fire report (prepared by the respective Borough Commander) is considered at a meeting chaired by the Deputy Commissioner. This meeting is also attended by the Borough Commander, the Area Deputy Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioners (for both Operations & Mobilising and Fire Safety Regulation), as well as a member of the Community Safety Policy Group.
This meeting enables a number of factors to be considered in respect of the circumstances of each fire death. It considers the key aspects to each case, which range from circumstances where it is reasonable to assert that all conceivable measures had already been taken by the Brigade, through to cases where there is clearly more for the Brigade to do in respect of partnership working, or interventions with specific “at risk” groups.
LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET
Date 26 January 2011 77 year old Mr B died after he sustained serious Time of call 20:35:02 burns, believed to be caused as a result of him Number of fatalities 1 falling into a diabetic coma, and then falling on a 2 bar electric heater. victim - age 77 It is understood that he had collapsed several times victim - gender Male previously as a result of his diabetes and relied victim - ethnicity White British upon the heater to keep warm because he suffered diabetes related problems with his circulation. Borough Barnet
Motive Accidental A very sad death for an elderly man. Location of fire start Living Room Item first ignited Other item Ignition source Heating / fire Person too close to heat Main cause source (or fire)
LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT
Date 24 February 2011 65 year old Mr J lived alone in a housing association Time of call 22:41:06 flat. He had a history of mental illness and had a clinical diagnosis of residual schizophrenia. In the Number of fatalities 1 days before his death, he was indicating signs of victim - age 65 stress. victim - gender Male It is likely that the cause of the fire that resulted in victim - ethnicity Other Asian or Asian British Mr J’s death is smoking related. Borough Brent The Borough Commander will be pressing for a local adult safeguarding review in respect of Mr J, to Motive Not known explore whether his risk of exposure to fire had Location of fire start Bedroom been adequately assessed and the necessary provision made. Like Mrs R, there appears to have Item first ignited Not known been a prime facie case for the installation of a Ignition source Not known domestic sprinkler.
Pending Fire Investigation Main cause Team finding s
Page 148 50 of 73 LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY
Date 5 February 2011 95 year old Mrs S lived alone in her privately Time of call 10:33:06 owned home. She was partially sighted, hard of Number of fatalities 1 hearing and had poor mobility. Her son offered her very high levels of support and she was also in victim - age 95 receipt of a privately funded care package. victim - gender Female Mrs S is believed to have died because she became victim - ethnicity White – British entwined in her duvet, which resulted in her knocking over her bedside lamp. This caused her Borough Bromley duvet to eventually catch fire as a result of radiated Motive Not known heat. Location of fire start Bedroom
Item first ignited Not known Ignition source Not known Pending Fire Investigation Main cause Team finding s
LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
Date 19 January 2011 Two members of the public witnessed an adult male Time of call 16:15:10 alight in woodland. They called the police who in turn called the LAS and LFB. Number of fatalities 1 victim - age 35 The police used two dry powder extinguishers to extinguish the fire. The police declared a crime victim - gender Male scene and when the crews arrived, the police victim - ethnicity Other Black or Black British informed them that the fire was out and the LAS had stated life was extinct and fact of death had been Borough Croydon recorded. Motive Deliberate – own property No action was taken by crews who later informed Location of fire start On or near tracks or paths FIT of the incident. On arrival of the FI's they liaised with the CID and CSM. Item first ignited Petrol / oil products Ignition source Cigarette lighter Suicide/attempted: setting Main cause fir e to self
LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING
Date 13 January 2011 A 24 year old recently married, Polish man d ied in Time of call 23:01:00 an incident related to an overheated chip pan. Number of fatalities 1 Mr M and his wife were living in a 3m x 5m garage victim - age 24 which had been converted into a private dwelling, probably in contravention of planning controls. victim - gender Male victim - ethnicity Other white Borough Ealing Motive Accidental Location of fire start Bedsitting room Item first ignited Cooking oil or fat Ring/hot plate (not part of Ignition source cooker) Cooking – chip pan/deep fat Main cause fryer
Page 149 51 of 73
Date 17 February 2011 I male fatality, most likely self-immolation. Fire Time of call 17:54:18 investigation was limited to a visual examination of the scene as Police had primacy, and the area was a Number of fatalities 1 potential crime scene. victim - age 35 victim - gender Male victim - ethnicity Asian or Asian British - Indian Borough Ealing Motive Deliberate / own property Location of fire start Corridor / hall Item first ignited Petrol/Oil products Lighted paper or card, or Ignition source other naked flame Suicide/attempted: setting Main cause fir e to self
LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH
Date 23 January 2011 The house was occupied by three members of the Time of call 04:01:51 same family at the time of the fire, two parents and their adult son. Number of fatalities 2 victims - age 39 & 73 One woman escape from the property by normal means and was removed to hospital suffering from victim - gender Both male smoke inhalation and shock. The two men were victim - ethnicity Both White British rescued from the front bedroom on the first floor by breathing apparatus crews. The older Mr J was Borough Greenwich declared dead on scene and the son was removed to Motive Accidental hospital by the LAS suffering life threatening injuries. The son died subsequently in hospital. Location of fire start Other One smoke alarm had been found in the property, Item first ignited Not known fitted in the ground floor kitchen. The smoke alarm Ignition source Smoking materials was a battery operated detector but the battery had Careless handling - due to previously been removed. Main cause car eless disposal
Date 26 February 2011 A car fire occurred in a secluded private road, and Time of call 02:00:29 one pumping appliance attended the incident.
Number of fatalities 1 The body of Mr S was discovered in the boot of the victim - age 22 vehicle. MPS who were on scene after making one victim - gender Male of the calls to the brigade were informed. victim - ethnicity Asian or Asian British – Indian A murder investigation was initiated and the responsibility of the incident was passed over to the Borough Greenwich MPS. Motive Deliberate – unknown owner Location of fire start Other Item first ignited Other item Ignition source Other Homicide/attempted: setting Main cause fire to other person/s
Page 150 52 of 73 LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY
Date 28 February 2011 Mr W was 85 and lived alone in a privately owned Time of call 17:59:48 dwelling. He had significant care needs and mobility restrictions and received high levels of care in his Number of fatalities 1 home. He lived mostly in one room in his house. victim - age 85 The cause of the fire is thought to have been related victim - gender Male to the use of incense sticks which fell into a laundry Black or Black British - basket. It is thought that Mr W used incense sticks victim - ethnicity Caribbea n because he used a commode due to his mobility Borough Haringey restrictions. Motive Not known Like other deaths in this period, he appears to have been a strong candidate for a domestic sprinkler. Location of fire start Bedroom The Borough Commander will be raising his Item first ignited Not known circumstances in the adult safeguarding arena. Ignition source Not known Pending Fire Investigation Main cause Team finding s
LONDON BOROUGH OF HAVERING
Date 4 March 2011 86 year old Mr M lived alone in his privately owned Time of call 01:48:13 home. He was physically impaired and used a walking stick, zimmer frame and sometimes a Number of fatalities 1 wheelchair. He was in the early stages of victim - age 86 Alzheimers, had cancer, and was also a smoker. It victim - gender Male was a smoking related fire that led to his death. victim - ethnicity White British He appears to have been another strong candidate for the installation of a domestic sprinkler. Borough Havering
Motive Accidental Location of fire start Living room Item first ignited Other item Ignition source Smoking materials Careless handling - due to Main cause car eless disposal
Page 151 53 of 73 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
Date 4 February 2011 A fire occurred on the 16th floor of a purpose built block of flats of 17 floors. The fire started in one flat Time of call 14:44:15 which was unoccupied of the fire but spread to Number of fatalities 2 other flats on the same floor. During the fire the living room window failed leading to a very severe victims- age 42 & 59 fire in the flat. victims - gender Female victims - ethnicity Other Asian or Asian British The metal front door of the flat appears to have been unsecured allowing the fire and smoke to vent into Borough Lewisham the communal landing area. Initial fire fighting crews Motive Deliberate – others property had difficulty entering the flat owing to heat and smoke. Location of fire start Not known Item first ignited Household paper/Cardboard Other crews searched flats on 16th floor and four Lighted paper or card, or people were rescued from another flat. They were Ignition source other naked flame treated by LAS on scene; one person was taken to hospital with non life threatening smoke inhalation. Two women were rescued from another flat on the same floor but both were unconscious; despite treatment they were pronounced dead by HEMS doctor. Heat source and combustibles Main cause brought toge ther deliberately Ten appliances attended this incident. About 40 people left the block as a result of the fire. Smoke detection was fitted to the communal landing areas of each floor, with single point smoke detectors in the flats.
LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM
Date 2 March 2011 Miss I woke to find her bedroom full of smoke; she Time of call 03:11:53 woke her partner who made his way out of the property thinking his partner was behind him, when Number of fatalities 1 he got into the communal lobby on the 2nd floor the victim - age 40 flat door closed behind him. This locked him out and victim - gender Female her in. He attempted to smash the door glass to aid her escape this caused serious cuts to his hands in victim - ethnicity Other white the process. Borough Newham The main area of fire was in the kitchen with severe Motive Accidental smoke damage to the remainder of the flat. The area of origin was around a plastic crate used as a rubbish Location of fire start Kitchen bin and a fridge freezer. There was evidence of Item first ignited Household paper / cardboard smoking and drinking within the flat, there was also Ignition source Smoking materials evidence of careless disposal. Careless handling - due to Main cause car eless disposal
Page 152 54 of 73 LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE
Date 14 March 2011 This was a fire in a converted garage, used as living accommodation, attached to 3 bedroom semi Time of call 01:03:34 detached house. Number of fatalities 1 4 Children left before arrival of Brigade from main victim - age 44 house, but Mr P was found in converted garage and victim - gender Male later confirmed dead. victim - ethnicity Other white Borough Redbridge Motive Accidental Location of fire start Garage Item first ignited Bed / mattress Lighted paper or card, or Ignition source other naked flame Careless handling - due to Main cause sleep or unco nsciousness
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Date 17 January 2011 64 year old Mr O is understand to have been visiting Time of call 02:18:44 the UK, but was normally resident overseas. Number of fatalities 1 It seems likely that the fire that led to his death was victim - age 64 caused by a tea light; in use because the block of flats had been without electrical supply for a number victim - gender Male of days following a prior flooding event. Black or Black British - victim - ethnicity It is not difficult to imagine that the potential fire African safety implications of residents being left without an Borough Southwark electrical supply for a prolonged period are not Motive Accidental widely appreciated. In the Brigade’s experience, it often results in the use of appliances and methods Location of fire start Other that are of greater fire risk. This is an issue that the Item first ignited Not known Fire Investigation report which will be made available to the inquest will highlight. Ignition source Candle or tea light Combustible articles too close Main cause to heat s ource (or fire)
LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS
Date 7 March 2011 This was a double fatal fire that occurred in a Time of call 01:16:57 maisonette occupying the 2nd and 3rd floors of a purpose built block. The fire in currently under Number of fatalities 2 investigation by the LFB, FSS and MPS. Further victim - age 83 and 30 details to be released when available. victim - gender Male (both) victim - ethnicity Other Asian/Asian British Borough Tower Hamlets Motive Not known Location of fire start Not known Item first ignited Not known Ignition source Not known Pending Fire Investigation Main cause Team finding s
Page 153 55 of 73 LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST
Date 4 January 2011 The fire occurred in a privately owned, terraced house of two floors, built circa 1930. Time of call 20:43:34 Number of fatalities 1 The fire had broken through a large bay window in victim - age 27 the front of the house; it was this that led to its discovery by neighbours. The neighbours forced the victim - gender Female front door in an attempt to rescue the occupants, Asian or Asian British - without success. victim - ethnicity Pakistani Borough Waltham Forest Mrs A was rescued by BA crew, unconscious and suffering burns. Motive Deliberate / unknown owner She was treated on scene by LAS but pronounced Location of fire start Bedroom dead by HEMS doctor. Item first ignited Not known Ignition source Not known Heat source and combustibles Main cause brought toge ther deliberately
Date 5 January 2011 66 year old Mrs R is thought to have died because Time of call 04:14:20 she fell asleep on a sofa while smoking. She sustained burns and left her home, which was Number of fatalities 1 significantly fire damaged, but died later. victim - age 66 Mrs R was registered blind and had mental health victim - gender Female difficulties. She had also suffered an earlier fire at Black or Black British – her home, in August 2010. victim - ethnicity Caribbean Mrs R was clearly vulnerable and an established risk Borough Waltham Forest in terms of her likelihood to experience a fire. She Motive Accidental was the kind of vulnerable person in respect of whom we would urge the responsible authorities Location of fire start Living room (housing or social services) to consider the Item first ignited Clothing installation of a domestic sprinkler. Ignition source Smoking materials Careless handling - due to Main cause car eless disposal
Date 9 March 2011 This fire occurred in the living room of a first floor Time of call 03:58:03 flat. Mr M was working as a jeweller at his work bench which was situated in the corner of the living Number of fatalities 1 room. victim - age 46 His daughter escaped from the building before the victim - gender Male arrival of the fire brigade. victim - ethnicity Not known The casualty was found by crews in the living room Borough Waltham Forest and first aid was giving prior to the arrival of the LAS. Motive Not known Location of fire start Living room A smoke alarm was fitted to the property but had Item first ignited Clothing been disconnected. Ignition source Not known Pending Fire Investigation Main cause Team finding s
Page 154 56 of 73 Appendix 3
Budget monitoring, 2010/11 Forecast Outturn
The budget heads shown below are those which have variances in excess of 3 per cent and £30k under or over annual budget at outturn.
Annual Outturn at Q4 Annual Variance Outturn Movement Budget Variance % Variance Q3 between variance figures £ £ £ £ £ £
Operational Firefighters 282,856,377 272,428,877.00 (10,427,500) -4% (7,419,380) (3,008,120) Trainee Firefighters 2,990,747 2,609,888 (380,859) -13% (237,800) (143,059) Control Staff 6,083,717 6,196,834 113,117 2% 151,976 (38,859) FRS Staff 51,573,321 51,920,678 347,357 1% (99,474) 446,831
STAFF COSTS 343,504,162 333,156,277 (10,347,885) -3% (7,604,678) (2,743,207)
Other Pensions Payment 990,000 3,027,597 2,037,597 206% 0 2,037,597 Severance 1,999,000 1,232,891 (766,109) -38% 800,000 (1,566,109) Training & Conferences 4,478,976 3,629,344 (849,632) -19% (353,700) (495,932) Recruitment 432,142 210,878 (221,264) -51% (164,207) (57,057) Compensation 1,332,115 857,038 (475,077) -36% (37,385) (437,692) Medical & Welfare Expense 1,990,800 1,931,019 (59,781) -3% (59,000) (781) Capitalised Staff Costs (1,212,400) (342,451) 869,949 -72% 0 869,949
STAFF RELATED 10,010,633 10,546,316 535,683 5% 185,708 349,975
Building Maintenance 9,028,112 8,947,159 (80,953) -1% (292,300) 211,347 Energy Costs 2,942,911 2,410,613 (532,298) -18% (376,000) (156,298) Rents 4,282,441 4,179,097 (103,344) -2% (171,970) 68,626 Property Rates 7,868,086 7,057,877 (810,209) -10% (549,000) (261,209) Water Services 230,305 265,246 34,941 15% 37,000 (2,059) Fixtures & Fittings 327,300 306,622 (20,678) -6% (14,400) (6,278) Cleaning and Domestic Supplies 2,856,598 2,971,729 115,131 4% 148,220 (33,089) Premises Insurance 449,000 392,369 (56,631) -13% (39,000) (17,631) Other Property Services 1,630,398 1,031,163 (599,235) -37% (347,500) (251,735)
PREMISES 29,615,151 27,561,875 (2,053,276) -7% (1,604,950) (448,326)
Running Costs 2,788,996 2,534,104 (254,892) -9% (139,300) (115,592) Unitary Payment 17,235,789 16,872,765 (363,024) -2% (340,000) (23,024) Passthroughs 824,151 1,346,271 522,120 63% 555,000 (32,880) Contract Hire & Operating Leases 1,369,000 1,665,513 296,513 22% 178,500 118,013 Travel 2,349,076 2,222,060 (127,016) -5% (84,695) (42,321)
TRANSPORT 24,567,012 24,640,713 73,701 0% 169,505 (95,804)
Hydrants 677,900 841,280 163,380 24% 0 163,380 Equipment. Furniture & Materials 1,175,162 1,095,560 (79,602) -7% 73,384 (152,986) Operational Equipment - PFI 137,555 174,102 36,547 27% 35,000 1,547 Catering Equipment 110,700 141,867 31,167 28% 32,500 (1,333) Clothing & Laundry 3,757,515 3,111,362 (646,153) -17% (409,300) (236,853) General Office Expenses 849,674 666,291 (183,383) -22% (76,275) (107,108)
Page 155 57 of 73 Annual Outturn at Q4 Annual Variance Outturn Movement Budget Variance % Variance Q3 between variance figures £ £ £ £ £ £
Professional Services 4,862,828 4,392,039 (470,789) -10% (273,152) (197,637) Postal Services 169,700 126,177 (43,523) -26% (4,600) (38,923) Telecommunications & Radio 3,330,244 2,931,687 (398,557) -12% (75,700) (322,857) Staff Reimbursements 940,317 732,723 (207,594) -22% (192,597) (14,997) Computing 5,378,504 5,539,569 161,065 3% 24,150 136,915 Other Insurance 190,000 173,782 (16,218) -9% (15,000) (1,218) Advertising 206,243 242,120 35,877 17% 27,462 8,415 Other 327,200 234,434 (92,766) -28% (227,300) 134,534
SUPPLIES & SERVICES 22,113,542 20,402,993 (1,710,549) -8% (1,081,428) (629,121)
Other Agencies 261,700 286,809 25,109 10% 12,879 12,230 Audit & Bank Charges 174,600 143,745 (30,855) -18% (25,000) (5,855)
THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS & MISC 436,300 430,554 (5,746) -1% (12,121) 6,375
External Interest 6,309,000 5,764,191 (544,809) -9% (509,000) (35,809) Debt Repayment 5,800,000 5,654,000 (146,000) -3% (146,000) 0
EXTERNAL FINANCING COSTS 12,109,000 11,418,191 (690,809) -6% (655,000) (35,809)
Grants (9,966,551) (9,677,593) 288,958 -3% (113,000) 401,958 Insurance Companies (16,537,500) (17,685,040) (1,147,540) 7% (1,127,500) (20,040) Customer & Client Receipts (4,549,478) (5,883,428) (1,333,950) 29% (213,869) (1,120,081) Interest (250,000) (770,709) (520,709) 208% (500,000) (20,709) Bad Debts 0 (60,945) (60,945) 0% 20,230 (81,175)
INCOME (31,303,529) (34,077,715) (2,774,186) 9% (1,934,139) (840,047)
Business Continuity 0 940,073 940,073 0% 927,000 13,073
Firefighter Pension Scheme 17,171,880 18,406,452 1,234,572 7% 0 1,234,572 0 Central Contingency Against Inflation 7,722,318 0 (7,722,318) -100% (6,239,000) (1,483,318) 0 Contributions from Reserves (313,612) (313,612) 0 0% 0 0 0 PFI Grant Variance for Future Years (1,509,247) (1,509,247) 0 0% 0 0
AUTHORITY TOTAL 437,300,000 414,784,059 (22,515,940) -5% (18,111,080) (4,404,859)
Page 156 58 of 73 Appendix 4
Commentary on Variances
2010/11 Movement Outturn Between 3 rd Variance and 4 th Quarter Figures £000’s £000’s
Staff Operational – the outturn underspend is due to vacancy levels during the year and -10,808 -3,151 industrial action. The movement between the forecast and the outturn is because vacancy levels increased in the last quarter of the year. There was a reduction of 133 operational posts in the 2011/12 budget. Based on recent recruitment of new operational trainees it is forecast that there will be 260 new joiners in 2011/12. The 2011/12 budget included savings of £1,875k against the employers contributions element of the operational staff pensions budget.
Staff Related
Other Pensions Payments and Severance – the overspend reflects early release costs on +1,271 +471 the Local Government Pension Scheme for redundancies. The outturn is £471k higher than previously forecast as a result of final early release costs being higher than originally estimated by the LPFA. Training – the variance is due to the postponement of some courses due to industrial -850 -496 action and vacancies. The movement is as a result of some of the courses being rescheduled into 2011/12. Recruitment - Net underspend is due to a downturn in FRS recruitment activity and -221 -57 therefore lower spend on advertising and on assessments. Savings of £217k have been proposed against this budget in 2011/12. Compensation – the underspend is due to the re-evaluation of anticipated damages and -475 -438 costs in high value cases, as part of the final accounts process. There is no longer an annual budget for compensation, making a saving of £1,330k in the 2011/12 budget, and money has been set aside from the general reserve in an earmarked reserve for future spend. Capitalised Staff Costs – the outturn reflects the position that control room costs are no +870 +870 longer chargeable to the capital programme. The budget position has been revised to reflect this for 2011/12.
Premises
Building Maintenance – the outturn variance is due to an underspend against the Salix -81 +211 fund for energy reduction schemes and will be carried forward into 11/12. The movement since the 3 rd quarter is due to the approval of the PFI project by CLG enabling budget that was previously forecast to be underspent to be spent. Energy Costs – a new contract signed with the energy provider in quarter 3 has resulted -532 -156 in energy being supplied at a lower unit cost. The additional underspend since quarter 3 was due to the milder weather in quarter 4 than in previous years. Savings of £307k are included in the 2011/12 budget.
Page 157 59 of 73 2010/11 Movement Outturn Between 3 rd Variance and 4 th Quarter Figures £000’s £000’s Property Rates – as previously reported, the outturn underspend is mainly due to the -810 -261 revaluation of unused appliance bays at eighteen stations backdated to 2005/06 including sites undergoing rebuilds and refunds for four unused appliance rooms. The underspend has increased at outturn due to a reversal of a previous provision for rates which no longer applies as part of the closing process. Savings of £814k are included in the 2011/12 budget. Other Property Services – the underspend at outturn was because of the previously -599 -252 reported review of the approach to providing temporary stations for the PFI project. This increased in quarter 4 due to slippage on consultancy work while awaiting a decision on the future of the project from CLG.
Transport
Running Costs – lower than budgeted fuel prices for much of the year resulted in an -255 -116 underspend on this budget. Unitary payment - the underspend is due to delays in the implementation of the Hose -363 -23 Layer Unit and BA Mobile Charging Unit and takes account of the effect of KPIs and abatements. The Hose Layer delay means that the full year effect of savings identified in the 2009/10 budget report of £467k in 2010/11 have not been achieved. The project is on track to deliver full year savings of £666k in 2011/12. Passthroughs – the outturn overspend consists of £370k for new EDBA and telemetry per +522 -33 FEP 1585, and £160k for accident repairs. Contract Hire and Operating Leases – The outturn variance was due to an overspend on +297 +118 the lease car budget following a delay in the implementation of the new leasing policy as reported in FEP1398. The delay occurred because HMRC were required to provide advice and they did not manage to provide this in a timely fashion.
Supplies and Services/Third Party
Hydrants – The overspend was due to water companies completing outstanding repairs. +163 +163 An earmarked reserve has been set up to smooth the impact of the work on outstanding repairs in future years. Clothing and Laundry – the outturn underspend is due to operational vacancies and -646 -237 lower than forecast spend on damaged clothing. There is a saving of £100k in the 2011/12 budget. Professional services – the underspend reflects the position that financial and legal -471 -198 advisors to the future options for training project were procured on more favourable terms than anticipated. This is offset by additional expenditure on counsel fees as a result of the 7/7 bombings inquest. The movement is due to a decrease in counsel fees required. There is a saving of £218k in the 2011/12 budget. Telecommunications and Radio –The underspend relates to the delay to the start date of -399 -323 Airwave charges payable by the authority. There is a saving of £755k in the 2011/12 budget. Computing – The outturn overspend is as a result of the relocation project to the new +161 +137 mobilising centre at Merton, which is offset by new burdens grant.
Page 158 60 of 73 2010/11 Movement Outturn Between 3 rd Variance and 4 th Quarter Figures £000’s £000’s
External Financing Costs
External Interest - the outturn variance is due to the lower than forecast borrowing -545 -36 requirement in the Capital Programme. This is because the outturn for 2010/11 was lower than anticipated at the time of setting the budget in March. The 2011/12 budget has been reduced by £691k. Debt Repayment – As above -146 -146
Interest Receipts
Interest Receipts – as previously reported, the outturn performance on interest on -521 -21 balances reflects access to average higher rate of return and longer term investments following a review of approved counter parties, investment periods and available funds. There is additional income of £558k in the 2011/12 budget.
Other Income Received
Government Grants – This variance reflects the final grant position for 2011/12. Grant +289 +402 income has been reassessed in future years and an adjustment to the budget has been implemented for 2011/12. Insurance Companies (MFB Act) – as previously reported, the additional income from -1,148 -20 insurance companies reflects current levels of declarations received and prior year adjustments. There is an additional budget for this income of £2,053k in 2011/12. Customer & Client Receipts – The variance is due to LIFE income, costs awarded from -1,334 -1,120 legal prosecutions and income from shut in lifts charging. An income budget of £400k has been set up in 2011/12 for income received from shut in lifts charging.
Firefighter Pension Scheme
Firefighter Pension Scheme – the overspend relates to the creation of a provision for +1,235 +1,235 higher FF pension costs, as a result of an National Fraud Initiative exercise which identified pension arrears for which the Authority may be liable. This has been offset by an underspend on the ill health retirements element of the budget of £255k following a reduction in numbers from 12 to 6.
Central Contingency Against Inflation
Central Contingency Against Inflation – This is due to lower than budgeted inflation, -7,722 -1,483 including the now confirmed zero pay award for all staff groups. A saving of £6,907 is included in the 2011/12 budget.
Page 159 61 of 73 Appendix 5
Growth bids 2010/11
Description of Budgeted Spend in Project Update Growth Spend in 2010/11 2010/11 £000 £000 Domestic Smoke 150 133 Industrial action in the third quarter had an impact on the Alarms number of home fire safety visits which, combined with a lower than anticipated take up of the new specialist alarms, resulted in an underspend. Resourcing the 950 482 External legal and financial advisors have been appointed. Future Options for 4 bidders were invited to the outline solutions stage (ISOS) Training project of the competitive dialogue process. One bidder subsequently withdrew expressing an intention to team with one of the 3 remaining bidders. Outline solutions dialogue with the three bidders began on 15.2.11 and culminated with the submission of outline solutions on 8 April. Total Growth 1,100 615 Proposals
Page 160 62 of 73 Appendix 6 Key Corporate Financial Performance Indicators
Debt Analysis The table below shows an analysis of debt over 30 days by type and time outstanding as at the end of March 2011.
As at 31 December 2010 >2 years 1-2 years 120-365 days 90-120 days 60-90 days 30-60 days Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Fire certificates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fire reports 0 0 979 714 379 684 2,756 Special Services 0 0 611 0 0 0 611 Sundry Debtors 1,310 21 20,429 91,272 112,279 61,679 286,990 MFB Act 238,200 0 0 0 0 50,179 288,379 Page 161 3rd Party 33,829 43,541 93,295 18,725 1,036 40,397 230,823 273,339 43,562 115,314 110,711 113,694 152,939 273,339 Total
VAT VAT returns covering due dates and completed dates are measured to indicate how the associated processes are managed and supported by reliable data capture. Performance is measured based on the percentage of VAT returns made within 10 working days after month end.
VAT - Completion Dates for 2010/2011 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan -11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Due 18/05/2010 15/06/2010 15/07/2010 17/08/2010 15/08/2010 15/10/2010 15/11/2010 15/12/2010 17/01/2011 15/02/2011 15/03/2011 15/04/2011 Completed 12/05/2010 08/06/2010 08/07/2010 11/08/2010 09/09/2010 12/10/2010 09/11/2010 08/12/2010 11/01/2011 09/02/2011 09/03/2011 13/04/2011
Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan -11 Feb-11 Mar-11
Due 10 working days 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Completed 6 5 5 6 6 7 6 5 5 6 6 8
63 of 73
Invoice Payments (Corporate Local Indicator LI 61) Payment terms, covering due dates and payment methods are monitored and this measures the percentage of invoices paid within 30 days. In March 2011, 98.10 per cent per cent of invoices were paid within 30 days, and 92.49 per cent of invoices from companies that have identified themselves as small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) were paid within 10 days.
Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan -11 Feb-11 Mar-11 All invoices (LI 61i) Number of Undisputed Invoices 3,220 3,283 4,247 3,766 3,764 3,126 3,134 3,660 2,924 2745 4075 5435 (monthly) % Invoices paid on time 96.71% 93.73% 95.93% 98.70% 96.92% 99.14% 97.10% 97.19% 97.85% 95.99 98.21 98.10 (monthly) Number of Undisputed Invoices 47,156 46,826 46,610 46,482 47,232 45,957 45,272 44,894 44,518 43,675 43,406 43,379 (rolling 12 months) % invoices paid (rolling 12 96.46% 96.31% 96.29% 96.37% 96.43% 96.51% 96.47% 96.40% 96.39% 96.60 96.84 97.19 months)
Page 162 SME invoices (LI 61ii) Number of Undisputed Invoices 682 772 981 841 1,073 774 692 1,094 796 799 1,262 1,545 (monthly) % invoices paid on time 87.54% 88.73% 83.49% 88.59% 88.26% 86.56% 87.86% 91.41% 92.21 91.36 92.87 92.49 (monthly) Number of Undisputed Invoices 12,081 11,848 11,631 11,451 11,777 11,573 11,091 11,181 11,125 10,981 11,159 11,311 (rolling 12 months) % invoices paid (rolling 12 84.79% 85.10% 85.53% 85.52% 85.55% 85.50% 85.26% 85.37% 85.61% 86.17 88.25 89.61 months)
64 of 73
Maturing Structure of borrowing This indicator is a limit on longer term interest rate exposure. Local Authorities are exposed to the risk of having to refinance debt at a time in the future when interest rates may be volatile or uncertain. The Prudential Code’s Treasury management maturing structure of borrowing indicator is designed to assist Authorities to avoid large concentrations of fixed rate debt that has the same maturity structure and would therefore need to be replaced at the same time. The limits adopted and set out in the table below are based on CIPFA’s view of a prudent range of upper and lower levels of borrowing over a number of years.
Maturing Structure of TM Limits 30/04/10 31/05/10 30/06/10 31/07/10 31/08/10 30/09/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 31/12/10 31/01/10 28/02/11 31/03/11 borrowing (%)
Upper Lower Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Under 12 months 20 0 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 6 5
12-24 months 20 0 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 Page 163 2 – 5 years 50 0 15 14 17 15 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16
5 – 10 years 75 0 25 26 24 24 23 23 23 23 25 25 25 25
10 - 15 years 90 25 13 13 16 16 16 17 19 19 15 15 15 15
Over 15 years 90 25 37 27 34 34 35 33 31 31 33 33 33 34
Interest exposure Fixed rate borrowing and investment can contribute significantly to reducing uncertainty surrounding future interest rate scenarios. However the pursuit of optimum performance justifies retaining a degree of flexibility through the use of variable interest rates on at least part of the treasury management portfolio. This indicator shows to what degree the Authority’s borrowing and investments are exposed to the different types of interest rates.
Interest Rate TM 30/04/10 31/05/10 30/06/10 31/07/10 31/08/10 30/09/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 31/12/10 31/01/10 28/02/11 31/03/11 Exposure (%) Limits Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fixed rate 100 89 89 88 88 87 80 76 75 79 80 80 76 Variable rate 75 11 11 12 12 13 20 24 25 21 20 20 24
65 of 73
Appendix 7 Capital programme 2010/11
March Total Variance Total Movement N Authority Outturn between Anticipated between Total O Approved 2010/11 March Outturn at Anticipated T Programme Authority Quarter 3 Outturn at E 2010/11 Programme Quarter 3 and and Outturn Total Outturn 2010/11
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
NEW PROJECTS Fire Safety Works at Fire Stations 1,082 0 (1,082) 50 (50) 1 Replacement of Automatic Distress Signal 150 150 (0) 75 75 2 Unit
TOTAL NEW PROJECTS 1,232 150 (1,082) 125 25
ON GOING PROJECTS ICT PROJECTS Network Storage Solution (NAS/SAN) 130 328 198 490 (162) 3 Command Support System - Information 170 (1) (171) 14 (15) 4 Technology Telephone System (2+8) replacement at 624 0 (624) 0 0 5 Fire Stations Changes to Authority's Core Computer 180 14 (166) 35 (21) 6 Network Upgrade Operating System FEP 1168 400 72 (328) 9 63 7 Software Redevelopment (using Net 57 52 (5) 52 0 Architecture) Data Centre Relocation 550 742 192 742 0 8 Total ICT Projects 2,111 1,207 (904) 1,342 (135)
Firelink Firelink project 350 442 92 533 (91) 9 Firelink staff costs 26 23 (3) 23 0 Total Firelink 376 466 90 557 (91)
Home Fire Safety Check/Alarms 421 419 (2) 421 (2) FUNDED BY CAPITAL GRANT (421) (419) 2 (421) 2
Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) RPE Replacement & EDBA Project 2,856 2,857 1 2,903 (47) 10 Respiratory Protective Equipment 63 29 (34) 22 7 11 Support Project Total Respiratory Protective 2,919 2,886 (33) 2,926 (40) Equipment (RPE)
Page 164 66 of 73
March Total Variance Total Movement N Authority Outturn between Anticipated between Total O Approved 2010/11 March Outturn at Anticipated T Programme Authority Quarter 3 Outturn at E 2010/11 Programme Quarter 3 and and Outturn Total Outturn 2010/11
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
London Resilience Projects Total London Resilience Vehicles - 1,845 942 (903) 1,237 (295) 12 Property Implications (Yards/Forecourts)
Total London Resilience Projects 1,845 942 (903) 1,237 (295)
Fire Station Refurbishments West Norwood Fire Station - Rebuild or 2,509 268 (2,241) 277 (8) 13 Refurbishment (inc site purchase)
Business Continuity for PFI Projects - 1,200 112 (1,088) 154 (41) 14 Phase 1 Business Continuity PFI P1 - New Cross 0 3 3 0 3 FS Business Continuity PFI P1 - Deptford FS 0 3 3 0 3 Business Continuity PFI P1 - Stratford FS 0 3 3 0 3 Business Continuity PFI P1 - East Ham FS 0 3 3 0 3 Business Continuity PFI P2 - Poplar FS 0 2 2 0 2 Knightsbridge Fire Station - Alterations to 0 5 5 2 3 communal areas/facilities Lewisham Fire Station - Refurbishment 600 145 (455) 281 (136) 15 Heating at various stations 900 813 (87) 809 3 16 Window replacements various stations 338 60 (278) 60 (0) 17 Total Fire Station Refurbishments 5,547 1,418 (4,129) 1,583 (165)
Extensions of Fire Stations Holloway Fire Station - 1,103 85 (1,018) 69 16 18 Extensions/Internal alterations Total Extensions of Fire Stations 1,103 85 (1,018) 69 16
Walthamstow Fire Station - 3,431 1,462 (1,969) 1,893 (431) 19 Alterations/Works FPP 263 Total London Safety Plan (2) 3,431 1,462 (1,969) 1,893 (431)
Other Property Projects Corporate Property Project (CPP) 0 3 3 1 2 Appliance Bay Door Replacement 170 154 (16) 170 (17) Programme - Phase 3 Appliance Bay Floors Resurfacing 0 5 5 5 0 Programme - Phase 3 Mitcham PFI Site - Enabling Works 459 277 (182) 303 (26) 20 Total Other Property Projects 629 439 (190) 479 (40)
Page 165 67 of 73
March Total Variance Total Movement N Authority Outturn between Anticipated between Total O Approved 2010/11 March Outturn at Anticipated T Programme Authority Quarter 3 Outturn at E 2010/11 Programme Quarter 3 and and Outturn Total Outturn 2010/11
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
Sustainability Projects TO BE FUNDED FROM RESERVE 0 (115) (115) (29) (86) FUNDING FROM BRE LOW CARBON GRANT Energy Efficiency/Conservation Projects 700 717 17 704 13 Total Sustainability Projects 700 717 17 704 13
Minor Improvement Programme 800 694 (106) 799 (105)
Other Projects Brigade Wide Survey for Asbestos & 400 419 19 402 17 Removal 2009/10 - 20011/12 Total Authority-wide replacement of 167 162 (5) 201 (39) standby generators Water Rescue Boats (Water Rescue Level 0 8 8 7 1 3) Closed Circuit Television Provision from 45 0 (45) 0 0 Transport for London
Mobile work systems FEP 1366 796 445 (351) 416 29 Total Other Projects 1,408 1,033 (375) 1,026 7
TOTAL ONGOING PROJECTS 21,290 11,768 (9,522) 13,036 (1,268)
PROJECTS NEAR COMPLETION ICT PROJECTS Building Maintenance & Property Data 0 (29) (29) (29) 0 Base Broadband Wide Area Network Solution 0 (3) (3) (3) 0 (WAN) Corporate Gazetteer 40 (9) (49) (34) 26 21 Total ICT Projects 40 (41) (81) (66) 26
Relocation of Headquarters Headquarters 0 (5) (5) 0 (5) Disposal of 8 Albert Embankment 60 109 49 55 54 22 Total Relocation of Headquarters 60 104 44 56 49
London Resilience Projects Hornchurch Fire Station FEP 572/851 0 10 10 9 1 (Property & Operations) Total London Resilience Projects 0 10 10 9 1 Page 166 68 of 73
March Total Variance Total Movement N Authority Outturn between Anticipated between Total O Approved 2010/11 March Outturn at Anticipated T Programme Authority Quarter 3 Outturn at E 2010/11 Programme Quarter 3 and and Outturn Total Outturn 2010/11
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
Fire Station Refurbishments Clapham Fire Station & Cottages - 0 2 2 2 1 Window Replacement Kensington Fire Station - Refurbishment 0 23 23 23 0 Wandsworth Fire Station - Re-roofing & 0 (1) (1) (3) 2 Window Replacement Total Fire Station Refurbishments 0 25 25 22 3
New/Replacement Fire Stations Havering (Harold Hill) Fire Station - New 0 (4) (4) (70) 66 Fire Station Total New/Replacement Fire Stations 0 (4) (4) (70) 66
Total London Safety Plan (2) Sidcup Fire Station - Alterations/Works 0 37 37 38 (1) 23 FPP 263 Total London Safety Plan (2) 0 37 37 38 (1)
Other Property Projects Lambeth River Stn - Marine Engineering 0 (7) (7) (7) 0 Works FEP1048 Croydon Fire Station - Replacement 0 8 8 24 (16) Windows & Heating Systems FEP 1043 Harrow Fire Station - Replacement boiler 0 2 2 3 (1) Appliance Bay Floors Resurfacing 0 2 2 2 0 Programme - Leyton FS Appliance Bay Doors Replacement 0 1 1 1 0 Programme - Lee Green FS Appliance Bay Doors Replacement 0 2 2 2 0 Programme - Southall FS Appliance Bay Doors Replacement 0 2 2 (0) 2 Programme - Stanmore FS Appliance Bay Floors Resurfacing 0 4 4 4 0 Programme - Homerton FS Breathable Air Charging Facilities 968 970 2 1,005 (36) (Barking, Beckenham & Park Royal) Total Other Property Projects 968 983 15 1,033 (50)
SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS Building Energy Efficiency Programme 1 0 (1) (1) (9) 8 (BEEP1) Total Invest to Save 0 115 115 29 86 24
Page 167 69 of 73
March Total Variance Total Movement N Authority Outturn between Anticipated between Total O Approved 2010/11 March Outturn at Anticipated T Programme Authority Quarter 3 Outturn at E 2010/11 Programme Quarter 3 and and Outturn Total Outturn 2010/11
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
Total Invest to Save 0 114 114 20 94
TO BE FUNDED FROM RESERVE (114) (114) (20) (94)
TOTAL NEAR COMPLETION 1,068 1,228 160 1,040 188 PROJECTS
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 23,590 13,146 (10,444) 14,201 (1,055)
Page 168 70 of 73
Capit al Programme 2010/11 – Commentary on Outturn Variances
Note Project Comment Variance Movement between between Total March plan Anticipated and Outturn Outturn @ P9 to Outturn
£000 £000
1 Fire Safety Works at The underspend reflects delays pending finalisation of -1,082 -50 Fire Stations the scope and prioritisation of fire safety works to be undertaken. A revised project profile was reported to the Finance and Personnel Committee in June 2011 (FEP 1745)
2 Replacement The project was able to be closed more quickly than Automatic Distress anticipated at the end of December. At the time of Signal Units setting the 2011/12 capital programme, the forecast 0 +75 underspend was carried forward into 2011/12 – it is no longer required.
3 Network Storage Due to the delayed start of the data centre project the +198 -163 Solution funds allocated for 2009/10 were carried over to 10/11. An overall saving of £110k is anticipated.
4 Command Support Delays in the implementation timetable for this system -171 -15 System have put back the timeline for subsequent releases of functionality. This will now be delivered in 2011/12 and results in an under spend for 2010/11.
5 Telephone System This payment is now due to take place in the 2011/12 -624 0 (2+8) Replacement financial year following the delayed award of the contact for.£250k,. However this will in effect be cost neutral after 3 years due to significant revenue savings in support and maintenance. This option will also reduce the capital requirement by £200k and create a consequent revenue reduction of £45 due to reduced debt charges.
6 Changes to Completion of the core upgrade has been -166 -21 Authority Core complicated by the late start of the data centre project Computer Network and completion is now expected in 2011/12. This has resulted in an under spend in 2010/11 and a deferral of expenditure to next year. 7 Upgrade Operating A combination of factors including the data centre -328 63 System Stars upgrade and resource conflicts have delayed this project with expenditure now slipping into 2011/12. This results in an under spend for 2010/11. 8 Data Centre As previously reported additional costs have arisen in +192 0 Relocation order to connect the LFB and TFL networks. In addition there are some legal costs associated with the Page 169 71 of 73
Note Project Comment Variance Movement between between Total March plan Anticipated and Outturn Outturn @ P9 to Outturn
£000 £000
lease arrangements for the new data centre. 9 Firelink Project The overspend in 2010/11 is due to bringing forward +90 -91 spend on works which were programmed to be paid for in 2011/12.
10 RPE Replacement The movement between the forecast at December 1 -47 and outturn is due to negotiation on equipment prices and a reduction in overall quantities.
11 RPE Support The outturn variance is due to an underspend in the -34 +7 staff budget.
12 LR Vehicles – As reported to Finance and Personnel Committee in -903 -295 Property June (FEP 1746), this work has been reprogrammed. Implications This represents the final figure after closing and is an (Yards/Forecourts) update from the underspend of £942k quoted in FEP 1746.
13 West Norwood FS – Work delayed pending planning approval. -2,241 -8 Rebuild/ Refurbishment (inc. site purchase)
14 Business Continuity The delay in project delivery was due to uncertainty over -1,076 -29 for PFI Projects the provision of funding of the PFI project, which has since been confirmed by CLG. Officers are now progressing phases 1 and 2 of the Business continuity works following Finance and Personnel Committee approval. The works are anticipated to be completed by December 2011.
15 Lewisham FS - The tender evaluation exercise took longer than -455 -136 Refurbishment planned as further information was required resulting in a delayed contract award. Works commenced in February 2011 with completion due in August 2011.
16 Heating at Various Tender prices for the heating scheme at Eltham were -87 +3 Stations less than expected resulting in a reduced outturn.
17 Window Lower than expected bids for the works were -278 0 Replacements at achieved. Works now completed and awaiting Various Stations settlement of final accounts.
18 Holloway FS – Negotiation and agreement to lease with the -1,018 +16 Extension/Internal Metropolitan Police Authority as to their spatial Alterations requirements resulted in a prolonged design programme. Subject to completion of the lease agreement with the MPA, anticipated date for tender documentation to be issued is June 2011 with Page 170 72 of 73
Note Project Comment Variance Movement between between Total March plan Anticipated and Outturn Outturn @ P9 to Outturn
£000 £000
estimated start on site in September 2011 and completion in 2012/13 financial year.
19 Walthamstow FS – Delay to the construction project occurred due to the -1,969 -431 New Build original steel frame supplier entering into receivership. A new supplier was appointed to carry out the works. Inclement weather during December 2010 and design changes caused further delays. Works are progressing with anticipated completion due in December 2011.
20 Mitcham PFI Site – The programme to complete the bus stop works was -182 -26 Enabling Works achieved quicker than anticipated resulting in 90% of the performance bond (valued at £89k) expected to be received in 2011/12 occurring in 2010/11. Tender returns for the bus stop works were also less than expected.
21 Corporate Progress on the integration of the gazetteer with the -49 +26 Gazetteer Farynor system has been slow due to additional work been required to ensure the integrity of data.
22 Disposal of 8 Albert The variance is due to estates management and legal +49 +54 Embankment fees incurred relating to the disposal.
23 Sidcup FS – Additional costs were incurred in resolving the final +37 -1 Alterations/LSP2 account and outstanding works up to completion of Works the project. The overall project cost is expected to be within the Authority approved sum.
24 Sustainability The variance is due to the settlement of outstanding +115 +86 Projects/ Invest to retention payments for energy projects at East Ham, Save Croydon and Sidcup as well as various PV and CHP projects from the 09/10 financial year.
These projects have generated £54k revenue savings from 09/10 utilities budgets for use in the energy efficiency revolving fund to fund capital projects in 2010/11. Also, a £20k contribution was received from Lewisham council in respect of a lighting project at Lewisham Fire Station.
Page 171 73 of 73 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 172 Appendix 4
Metropolitan Police Authority – 30 June 2011
COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
Report by the Commissioner
Summary
This report summarises recent performance in the MPS, as well as operations and initiatives designed to tackle crime and make London safer.
It is intended to update MPA members and give a high-level, strategic view of the work of the MPS. It highlights the Commissioner’s operational priorities of improving public confidence, tackling serious violence and serious youth violence, delivering value for money policing, ensuring a safe and secure Olympics and countering terrorism.
This is the first report on MPS performance against the 2011/12 KPIs and their targets as set out in the MPA/MPS Policing London Business Plan 2011-14. At the time of this report’s submission, data is only available for one month of the new 2011/12 financial year (April 2011) and therefore the comparisons in the main body of the report are between February to April 2011 against the same three months in 2010 (except for Confidence and Satisfaction results). Three months gives a more robust view of trends than just one month and is consistent with other MPA reports, such as that submitted to SOPC.
At the Full Authority meeting, the Commissioner will be able to update members on performance in May 2011.
A. RECOMMENDATION – The report be received.
B. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1. In consultation and agreement with the MPA, the number of Key Performance Indicators has been reduced to nine for the new financial year 2001/12, including a Violence and Property portfolio target approach. This approach enables the MPS to form a view of crime in London across a large number of linked offences where the motivation is similar. The portfolios only include crimes where there is a victim, as opposed to state based crimes that are uncovered as a result of police action to enforce the law or prevent disorder - for example drug and public order offences.
Confidence and Satisfaction 2. The MPS Public Attitude Survey results at the end of the 2010/2011 financial year showed that 66% of Londoners thought their local police were doing a good job. This is a significant achievement and also represents a 4% increase Page 173 on the 62% result for 2009/10. In particular performance improved in quarter 4 (January - March) of 2010/11 with 70% of Londoners approving of the local police compared to 64% for the same quarter in 2009/10. We hope to see this improvement continue into the new 2011/12 financial year.
3. The latest User Satisfaction Survey results also cover the previous financial year period of April to March 2010/11. Overall satisfaction was up slightly at 78.6% compared to 78.1% for the 2009/10 financial year period. The satisfaction of white users with the overall service rose from 78.8% in 2009/10 to 80.1% in 2010/11 while that of BME users stayed more or less the same - 73.9% vs 73.8% over the same period.
Operation Target 4. On 8 June the MPS launched Operation Target, a renewed crackdown on violent offenders, robbers and burglars. Drawing together existing operations - some of which are also outlined in this report - with additional asset, the sustained campaign brings together all the MPS’ specialist resources, skills and people to support local police officers in tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.
5. Specialist MPS teams, such as the Flying Squad, Traffic and Mounted Branch are supporting BOCUs to deliver the operation. Covert and overt tactics, and intelligence-led interventions are being used. Specialist investigation teams are tracing and arresting wanted or suspected robbers and burglars, while increased presence on the streets is being achieved by extra uniformed patrols in key areas.
6. Operation Target will run for at least six months and be subject to regular review as we look to analyse performance and maximise tactical deployments. In the short term, we are looking to achieve immediate crime reductions in robbery and burglary. Over a longer period we are looking to enhance public confidence by achieving significant and sustained reductions in crime in London. Additionally, the operation intends to embed a number of effective long term crime prevention strategies to ensure there is sustained crime reduction in these areas.
Violent Crime 7. Most aspects of violent crime showed a reduction over the three month period of February to April 2011. Violence with injury offences reduced by 6.1% (1,005 fewer offences from 16,556 to 15,551). Common assault reduced by 2.2% (236 fewer offences from 10,947 to 10,711) and harassment reduced by 15.9% (1,337 fewer offences from 8,416 to 7,079).
8. Overall gun crime fell by 32.8% or 273 offences (from 832 between Feb to April 2010 to 559 for the same period in 2011) and within this crimes where a gun was discharged fell by 6.7% (10 fewer offences from 149 to 139).
9. Overall knife crimes over the period Feb to April 2011 increased by 8.6% (288 additional offences from 3,348 to 3,636 offences) as did knife crimes where a knife was used to injure, up by 5.6% (56 additional offences from 1,004 to 1,060).
Page 174 10. There have been four fewer victims of homicide in the three month period February to April 2011, a total of 33, compared to 37 during the same period in 2010.
11. It is concerning that the number of victims of Serious Youth Violence increased by 5.2% (an increase of 95 offences from 1,843 to 1,938) over the comparison period.
12. Centrally, the MPS has adopted a number of operations and initiatives to reduce the incidents of violence and serious youth violence in London. In addition to Operation Target detailed above, initiatives include:
An Alcohol Violence Strategy Group (with partners) that tackles problem premises, repeat victims and repeat offenders.
Operation Connect, a centrally directed operation, aimed at tackling young people involved with or at risk from becoming involved with gang activity.
Blunt 2 which has been ongoing for several years and concentrates on the response to violence. Resources are tasked and deployed through the MPS’s five Area Commanders to whom BOCU Commanders report, allowing greater local control and flexibility to respond to changing intelligence.
The Anti-Violence Strategy 2011-14 which has been refreshed for 2011- 12 with activity concentrating on the five areas of Reassurance, Intelligence, Prevention, Enforcement and Partnership.
13. Reported domestic violence offences reduced by 2.1% over the 3 month period (254 fewer reported offences from 11,826 to 11,572) as did racist and religious crimes, down by 20.2% (463 fewer offences from 2,290 to 1,827). Homophobic crimes have shown a slight increase of 2.2% (6 more offences from 267 to 273 offences).
Property Crimes
14. Property crime includes robbery, motor vehicle crime, burglary, shoplifting and criminal damage. The number of overall offences in the three month period February to April 2011 increased slightly by 0.5% (632 offences from 132,192 to 132,824 offences) over the same period in 2010. Behind that slight increase, the component offence types are showing different trends.
Motor vehicle crime is down 2% (511 fewer offences from 24,996 to 24,485), as is criminal damage down by 12.9% (2,749 fewer offences from 21,347 to 18,598).
Robbery offences have increased by 6.2% (578 additional offences from 9,318 to 9,896). Theft from a Person, which comprises of snatches and pick pocketing, is up by 10.8% (925 additional offences from 8,590 to 9,515). Burglary offences are up by 5.3% (1,189 additional offences from 22,599 to 23,788).
Page 175 All other thefts, which make up 35% of the offences in the property portfolio, increased by 2.6% (1,200 additional offences from 45,342 to 46,542). These offences include shoplifting, theft of pedal cycles and motor vehicle interference and tampering.
15. To counter this, and in particular combat the robbery challenge, resources will be drawn together under Operation Target. We continue to target the five most acute robbery hotspots in the MPS. Specific action plans are based on Victim, Offender, Location and Time (VOLT) analysis and the problem-solving model. Those five BOCUs (Haringey, Lewisham, Westminster, Lambeth and Southwark) are being monitored centrally along with Blunt 2 which has also increased its focus on robbery.
Road Traffic Collisions 16. There have been 16 more fatal road traffic collisions in the 3 month period February to April 2011 compared to the same period last year (an increase from 29 to 45) although that was only 1 more than the same period two years ago.
17. The dedicated MPS Traffic Command continues to work hard to remove dangerous drivers from the streets of London. As a result over 65,000 traffic offenders were prosecuted during 2010/11, up 17% on 2009/10 data.
Rape and Serious Sexual Offences 18. In the three months from February 2011 to April 2011 there were 153 Sanction Detections (a detection that results in a disposal outcome) which was 10 more than in the same period in 2010 (143 SDs), a rise of 7%. There have been 51 more reported rapes in the period which equates to an increase of 6.2% (from 825 to 876). The SD rate consequently is almost unchanged at 17.5% for the three month period this year vs. 17.3% in 2010. Reported rapes went up by 16.7% (465) in 2010/11 which suggests that the rate of increase is slowing.
19. We continue to focus resources and operations on those areas that pose the greatest risk through ongoing partnership work with both the CPS, which has led to a new CPS rape charging centre being formed, with the Havens through the Havens Strategic Board. A new contract is being developed with the NHS to focus Haven services on the changing victim and reporting profile and to ensure specialist services are accessible for children.
Delivering a safe and secure Olympics 20. On 17 May, the AC Allison provided oral evidence to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill Committee which examined issues around ticket touting and other aspects of the amendment. This was an opportunity to update on the ongoing efforts of Operation Podium as security planning continues.
21. The towns that will host overnight celebrations during the Olympic Torch relay were announced on 18 May and the MPS Torch team led by Superintendent Claire Johnston is working closely with host forces and other partners in London and across the country to plan in detail the security of this event.
Page 176 22. Several significant Testing and Exercising events take place between now and the Games. The first strategic games-wide table top exercise for London 2012 will take place in early July and will focus on the Olympic Command Control and Co-ordination (C3) architecture and Concept of Operations (CONOPs) to be used during Games time. Other exercises and test events are planned throughout 2011 and early 2012.
23. On 6 July AC Allison will present to the ACPO Conference on Olympic matters. The presentation will discuss the developing understanding of how the police service will meet the demand of the Games, work closely with other delivery partners and raise awareness across UK Forces of the resource pressures the Games will generate nationally.
24. As part of the Olympic ICT programme, the upgrade to the Lambeth Special Operations Room (SOR) facilities is progressing to schedule. On 3 May 2011, the Lambeth site closed for Olympic reconfiguration of the ICT. The technology installations within the SOR include desk phones, ICCS (Integrated Communications Control System) terminals with touch screens, CCTV screens, computer terminals, headset connections and footswitches for Airwave radio communications. To provide cover during the Lambeth closure, the re-fit of the Hendon SOR was completed in advance of the Royal Wedding. It is intended that both facilities will be tested during the test events across London.
Better for Less 25. The 2011-14 Budget & Business Plan was approved at MPA Full Authority on 31 March. The document identifies that the MPA/MPS now has a balanced budget for 2011/12 on the basis that agreed reductions of £163m are delivered.
26. A great deal of excellent work has already taken place to make savings - in 2008/09 the MPS saved £72m; in 2009/10 it saved £194m. In 2010/11, the MPS saved a further £315m.
27. The MPS remains committed to continuing to deliver a better policing service for less by streamlining business support and making best use of operational assets. A significant part of this includes reducing the cost of inanimate objects and making efficiency savings in business support services resulting in the following profile of identified savings.
2011/12 Budget Saving on (Gross Spend) 2010/11 Budget £m % % Police officer pay 1,852 52 2 Staff pay 756 21 10 Overtime 127 4 4 Premises 196 6 8 Transport, supplies and services 495 14 9 Other 113 3 - 3,539 100
Page 177 28. The Commissioner has made clear to all MPS officers and staff that his focus is on protecting operational capability as far as possible. That means delivering a policing service that recognises the importance of both the visible uniformed presence on the street and the specialist policing services the MPS provide - often working largely unseen but affecting people’s lives significantly, such as tackling organised crime, firearms, drugs and child trafficking.
29. The Service still faces a very challenging financial environment. The Mayor's Budget Guidance for 2012-15 was published on 27 May 2012 requiring the MPS/MPA to present savings proposals for 2012/13 equal to £92.8m to balance the budget by the end of September 2011, earlier than in previous years.
30. In line with the MPS planning assumptions included in the Policing London Business Plan 2011-14, the Mayor requires the identification of further savings of £81.5m in 2013/14 and £79.7m in 2014/15 by 18 November 2011. Overall the Service will have to remove some £600m from its budget in 2014/15 as compared to 2010/11. Work has already started on meeting this challenge.
Public Order
31. The state visit of the President of the United States and the First Lady took place over a three day period towards the end of May. 4,600 officers were involved in the policing operation. The resilience of the MPS was tested when the President and his entourage arrived in London a day early because of the volcanic ash cloud. Despite this change of schedule occurring with only a few hours notice, a comprehensive policing plan was in place by the time the President and his entourage arrived. A number of protests were held and were monitored with proportionate police resources. The visit passed without any significant incidents.
32. The UEFA Champions’ League final took place in front of 90,000 fans at Wembley Stadium. A carefully planned policing operation ensured that the day passed off peacefully. Resources were in place to ensure that when small pockets of disorder broke out in central London, any trouble was swiftly quelled - 44 arrests were made, predominantly for public order offences.
Counter Terrorism 33. The Home Office launched the new Prevent Strategy on 7 June 2011. The MPS, together with ACPO (TAM) colleagues, have contributed to the development of the strategy. The MPS has also been reprofiling operational deployments and refining the Prevent toolkit to match the new approach. This has already seen an increase in approved disruptions (17 so far this performance year, compared with 13 for all of 2010/11).
34. In the Protect domain, the Specialist Protection Command (SO1) together with colleagues in the broader policing operation, successfully managed the protection operation for the State Visit of the President of the United States. This major operation came swiftly after the Libya Conference in March and the Royal Wedding in April. Counter Terrorism Command made a significant contribution in support of the protection operations in respect of managing
Page 178 identified and emerging potential threats. All of this activity is feeding the ongoing planning for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
35. Following the verdicts of unlawful killing in the inquests of 52 people killed in the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July 2005 the coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, praised the dedication and professionalism of Counter Terrorism Command officers. In a letter to the Commissioner she paid tribute to officers from the inquest team (Operation Ramus) who reviewed the vast quantities of evidential material, prepared reports about what happened to each of the deceased and supported witnesses. She also recognised the work of officers involved in the original investigation (Operation Theseus) which allowed a comprehensive range of information to be available for the inquest proceedings.
36. On 7 June, the MPS held a live multi-agency exercise in two locations in central London - one a tall office block on the South Bank and the other a 200 metre long surface-level tunnel in the City. It involved approximately 400 people from across police, ambulance and fire brigade. The objectives of the exercise specifically included the testing of (a) casualty evacuation techniques from a range of environs, including from a scene that still contains an active threat such as from a gunman; and (b) inter-control room communications. The approach to the later includes a process where the three control rooms (MPS, LAS and LFB) and, indeed the City of London Police and British Transport Police, have a conference call when an incident is suspected so that the individuals in charge of each control room can agree a coordinated response and adjust it quickly as required.
C. OTHER ORGANISATIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPLICATIONS
1. Equality and Diversity Impact 1.1 This report is concerned with overall MPS performance, but a number of equalities issues are highlighted, notably measures to encourage the reporting of domestic violence.
1.2 Throughout all the operational activity detailed in this report, the MPS strives to improve the quality of service provided to victims of hate crime, ensuring that a consistent and effective service is provided to London’s diverse communities; to improve performance against domestic violence, ensuring a consistent level of service across all communities and minimising disproportionality issues; to increase community trust and confidence in the police; to develop a workforce that reflects the diversity of London.
2. Consideration of MET Forward 2.1 This report fully reflects how the MPS is delivering the three key outcomes of Met Forward: fighting crime and reducing criminality, increasing confidence in policing, and providing better value for money.
3. Financial Implications 3.1 The financial challenges facing the Service are highlighted under the ‘better for less’ section of this report.
Page 179 3.2 Reports on the progress against the current business plan and budget are submitted on a regular basis to the MPA. The provisional outturn for 2010/11 is for an underspend of £13.9m. The MPA Finance & Resource Committee on 23 June was asked to approve a transfer to Reserves of £11m to support the 2011/12 and 2012/13 budgets as per the MPS Business Plan and to consider options for use of the remaining underspend (£2.9m).
3.3 The provisional outturn for the 2010/11 Capital Programme is £188.2m, which is £88.1m (31.9%) below the revised budget of £276.3m. As part of the measures to bridge the revenue expenditure funding ‘gap’ in 2011/12 & 2012/13, it was agreed by the MPA that £20m of capital expenditure planned to be financed by way of revenue contributions (RCCOs) during 2010/11 would be funded by additional borrowing. The revenue savings achieved will be ‘centrally held’ pending use during 2011/12 and 2012/13.
4. Legal Implications 4.1 As this report is a summary of operational performance data, no legal implications arise.
5. Environmental Implications 5.1 This report contains no direct environmental implications.
6. Risk Implications 6.1 The risks and opportunities are reflected in the content of this report and controls are in place where appropriate.
REPORT AUTHOR: Director of Business Strategy, Michael Debens
Page 180 Appendix 1
Same Period Key Performance Indicator Current period last year Difference % change Performance for the 3 months to Apr-11 unless otherwise stated (Feb-11 to Apr-11) (Feb-10 to Apr-10)
KPI1 Violence Portfolio Targets: 2% reduction (1 year) 5% reduction (3 year)
The number of violent crimes 33,924 36,680 -2,756 -7.5% G
Weapon enabled crimes (iwthin the portfolio and using APACS definitions) :
Guns discharged 114 114 0 0.0% Gun crime (includes discharged) 187 228 -41 -18.0%
Knives used to injure 891 817 +74 +9.1% Knife crime (includes used to injure) 1,238 1,288 -50 -3.9% Violence
KPI2 Rape Sanction Detections Targets: 4% increase (1 year) 10% increase (3 year)
Rape sanction detections 153 143 +10 +7.0% G
KPI3 Number of KSIs Targets: 2% reduction (1 year) 5% reduction (3 year)
227 % Change in number of people killed or seriously injured in road (RY - Dec G traffic collisions 2010)
KPI4 Property Portfolio Targets: 1% reduction (1 year) 3% reduction (3 year) crime
Property Property The number of property crimes 132,824 132,192 +632 +0.5% R
Weapon enabled crimes (within the portfolio and using APACS definitions) :
Guns discharged 19 26 -7 -27% Gun crime (includes discharged) 298 493 -195 -40%
Knives used to injure 164 180 -16 -8.9% Knife crime (includes used to injure) 2,361 2,031 +330 +16.2%
KPI5 Anti-Social Behaviour Targets: Baseline
The number of ASB incidents Data expected to be available in September ASB Crime ASB
KPI6 Local Police Doing a Good Job Targets: 1% increase (1 year) 2% increase (3 year)
Results for Q1 (Apr - Jun) 2011/12 due to be % of people who think police in their area are doing a good job 66% (2010/11) reported in Jul/Aug.
KPI7 User Satisfaction Targets: 1% increase (1 year) 3% increase (3 year)
% of victims satisfied with the overal service provided by the police 78.6% (all Results for Q1 (Apr - Jun) 2011/12 due to be
Confidence and of these the % of: 2010/11) reported in Jul/Aug.
80.1% White Users As above
73.9% BME Users As above
KPI8 Delivering a safe and secure olympics Programme Status: Red, Amber or Green
3 pan-Olympic programmes are amber, the 2 others are
Olympics Olympic safety and security programme status amber/green and the 3 London venue programmes are amber
Targets: Budget requirement £2,713m (1 year) £2,608m (3 KPI9 Efficient use of our assets year) The first monthly report on spend against budget will be for the Money Deliver a balanced budget for 2011/12 as set out in the Policing Value Value for period 1/4/11 to 31/5/11. Given the level of change and the A Plan 2011-14 pressures on the budget, this KPI is currently judged amber.
Footnotes: 1 The target for confidence measures are reported quarterly whereas all other measures are reported on a monthly basis. 2 Green - target met, amber - target not met but performance better than last year, red - target not met & performance not as good as last year 3 Rag Status RED - Off target and worse than the same period in the last financial year (i.e. April - March 2010 Vs April - March 2011) AMBER - Off target but better than the same period in the last financial year (i.e. April - March 2010 Vs April - March 2011) GREEN - Above target Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 182 Appendix 5
Transport for London Operational and Financial Performance Report Fourth Quarter, 2010/11
Purpose of Report: For the Managing Director, Finance, to inform the Finance and Policy Committee, the TfL Board and other stakeholders of TfL’s financial and operational performance every quarter.
This report covers Quarter Four (12 December 2010 – 31 March 2011), comprising operating periods ten to thirteen. TfL performance summary
Service: In the full year 2010/11, and in Quarter Four, passenger demand increased to record levels. London Underground (LU) recorded the highest number of passenger journeys in a year, beating the previous record set in 2008/09. This was despite disruption due to industrial action and the on-going, and challenging, Tube upgrade works. There was also record passenger demand in the quarter and the full year on London Buses, the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and Trams. This was despite challenging operating conditions due to severe winter weather.
Financial performance: In the full year, TfL net service expenditure was £1,318 million lower than budget and £348 million lower than forecast at Quarter Three. Total operating income was higher than budget and forecast, principally due to increasing passenger demand. Operating expenditure, net of third party contributions, was £453 million lower than budget largely due to savings across the business on staff costs and overheads. Net capital expenditure (excluding Crossrail) of £1,838 million, was £207 million below budget largely due to the deferred purchase of rolling stock for the Piccadilly line.
Efficiencies: On a gross basis, savings of £630 million were delivered during 2010/11, £104 million higher than target. This result reflects a continued improvement, with a further £56 million of savings being identified since the Quarter Three forecast
Staff: At year end, TfL employed 25,277 full time equivalent (FTE) staff. This was 2,426 fewer than budget, due to ongoing efficiencies and recruitment freezes across the organisation. The number of temporary workers, including those with more than 12 months’ service, continued to decline steadily.
Page 183
London Underground
Operational Performance
Quarter Four (Operating periods 10-13) Full Year London Underground Statu Vs Last Performance unit Actual Vs Target s Vs Last Year Actual Vs Target Status Year Passenger Journeys m 327.3 20.8 9.4 1,107.3 70.3 42.6 Scheduled Service Operated % 95.6 (0.6) (1.2) 95.6 (0.7) (1.0) Excess Journey Time mins 6.3 (0.4) 0.3 6.5 (0.2) 0.1 (Weighted) scor Overall CSS 79 - 1 79 - - e : better than or equal to target; : within 5% of target; : 5% or more worse than target Tables may be subject to rounding
1.0 In Quarter Four, London Underground passengers made 9.4 million (3.0 per cent) more journeys than last year and 20.8 million (6.8 per cent) more journeys than target. In the full year, as the long term increase in demand resumed, Tube passengers made more journeys compared to target and last year. For the first time in the history of the Underground, more than 1.1 billion passenger journeys were recorded, an increase of 4 per cent compared to the previous year.
1.1 In Quarter Four, the proportion of journeys made on the Underground by passengers who are not required to pay fares, was 0.20 per cent and, in the full year, 0.25 per cent. These passengers include children and staff. They do not include journeys made using a Freedom Pass, as TfL receives payment from the Boroughs for these.
1.2 In the quarter, London Underground operated a lower percentage of scheduled service compared to target and the same quarter last year. This was largely a consequence of network-wide industrial action on Boxing Day, severe weather conditions in mid-December and issues with the new Transmission Based Train Control (TBTC) system on the Jubilee line. In the full year, the percentage of schedule operated was lower than target. Industrial action caused a shortfall of 1 per cent (estimated at a loss of some 730,000 kilometres), without which the targeted percentage would have been achieved.
1.3 In Quarter Four, excess journey time on London Underground, although better than target, was slightly higher than last year. This was mainly due to industrial action, although high passenger numbers and issues with rolling stock, track and signals also adversely affected journey time. In the full year, the excess journey time target was beaten, despite disruption due to several days of industrial action. If the effect of this is excluded, the year end result falls to 6.20 minutes, an improvement compared to last year.
1.4 The London Underground Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) results were not available in Quarter Three, so the results are reported here. After exceeding the target for the first two quarters of the year, in Quarter Three the overall score dropped by 1 point to 79, meeting the target. It was a particularly challenging quarter, with a significant number of asset failures and other incidents impacting on performance. The quarter also saw record numbers of passengers using the system despite several days of industrial action. In Quarter Four, the score for London Underground CSS was also 79 points giving an average of 79 for the year, in line with the annual target.
Page 184
1.5 During the quarter, 39 passengers sustained accidental major injuries, three fewer than in the same quarter last year. At the year end, the moving annual average of major injuries per million hours on London Underground infrastructure was slightly worse than the targeted reduction. There were more accidental injuries compared to last year, although passenger numbers were also higher. There were no accidental fatalities in the year.
1.6 Data for Crime on the London Underground and DLR network is not yet available. This will be reported in the report to the TfL Board.
1.7 At year end, FTE staff numbers in London Underground were 10.5 per cent lower than budget, representing 2,076 fewer staff than budget and 449 fewer staff than forecast at Quarter Three. Over the full year, total staff numbers reduced by 780 reflecting changes in customer requirements for ticket offices and rationalisation of operational management structures.
Financial Performance
Full Year 2010/11 London Underground
£m Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast at Q3 Variance Status Operating Income (1,910) (1,792) (118) (1,891) (19) Operating Expenditure (net 1,774 2,130 (356) 1,835 (60) of third party contributions) Net Operating (136) 338 (473) (56) (80) Net Capital Expenditure 1,237 1,261 (24) 1,219 18 Net Service Expenditure 1,102 1,599 (497) 1,163 (61)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
1.8 Operating income was higher than budget in the full year. This was mainly due to higher fares income, driven by higher than budgeted passenger numbers and the fares increase in January 2011 being based on a higher RPI base than expected in the budget. It also reflects higher income from property rental and advertising.
1.9 Operating income in the full year was slightly higher than forecast at quarter three, again driven by fares income. It also included a favourable retrospective Travelcard apportionment adjustment and redistribution of revenue from the Train Operating Companies, for carrying mainline passengers during the severe winter weather. The full year forecast for operating income included the January 2011 fares increase which averaged at 6.8 per cent.
1.10 Operating expenditure, net of third party contributions, in the full year was £356 million lower than budget. TfL’s acquisition of Tube Lines was a major factor, giving rise to release of provisions of £113 million for Tube Lines claims and environmental risks, and write-back of £32 million remaining benefit from the 2004/05 Tube Lines refinancing. Expenditure on Central Services was £74 million lower than budget, largely due to savings on staff costs and overheads. Further lower expenditure included staff cost savings in Operations, more efficient line maintenance regimes and changes to revenue elements of the Investment Programme for station refurbishments, track and infrastructure projects.
Page 185
1.11 Full-year operating expenditure, net of third party contributions, was £60 million lower than forecast at Quarter Three. This was mainly due to the revision of Infrastructure Service Charge (ISC) payments to be in line with the Tube Lines programme and further savings on staff costs and overheads across the business.
1.12 Capital expenditure in the full year was slightly lower than budget. Underspends included re- profiling of expenditure on new trains for the Sub-Surface Rail (SSR) upgrade following a supplementary agreement with the supplier (Bombardier), changes in phasing of the track project delivery plan and reduced expenditure on station works. These were partly offset by lower third party income due to changes in the delivery programmes of Thameslink, Crossrail, Stratford and congestion relief at Heathrow Terminals 1-3 and higher capital expenditure on property acquisition for the congestion relief works at Bond Street and property purchases brought forward for the upgrade of Victoria Station.
1.13 Capital expenditure in the full year was higher than forecast at Quarter Three. There was a small increase on the SSR Upgrade as expenditure was brought forward resulting in a saving in the estimated final cost. Otherwise, release of the remaining provision for overprogramming more than offset lower expenditure on the Track programme due to delays and savings and delays to telecoms, information management and major power works.
Tube Lines
Financial Performance
Full year 2010/11 Tube Lines Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status £m at Q3
Operating Income (46) (43) (3) (44) (2) Operating Expenditure 287 316 (29) 297 (10) Net Operating 241 272 (31) 253 (12) Net Capital Expenditure 174 252 (79) 201 (27) Net Service Expenditure 415 524 (110) 454 (39)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
1.14 Full-year net operating expenditure was lower than budget and forecast. This was mainly due to the delayed start of the Jubilee fleet overhaul (late delivery of six trains, now expected in 2011/12) and slippage of the station services programme in relation to station asset renewal work. There were also savings in maintenance management and administration.
1.15 Capital expenditure in the full year was lower than budget and forecast. This was driven by slippage in the Jubilee and Northern Line Upgrades, and, in the Piccadilly Line Upgrade, project re-scoping and rephasing to future years.
1.16 Tube Lines is not yet fully integrated with TfL reporting processes. Therefore, staff numbers can be monitored and reported, but are not included in the TfL group number. At year end, Tube Lines staff numbers were as follows: • 2,116 permanent staff members (including secondees), 361 staff fewer than budget and 122 fewer than forecast at Quarter Three.
Page 186
• 151 temporary staff, 7 more than budget and in line with the Quarter Three forecast.
Page 187
Surface Transport
Operational Performance
Quarter Four (Operating p eriods 10-13) Full Year Vs Last Vs Vs Last Surface Transport Performance unit Actual Vs Target Status Year Actual Target Status Year London Buses Passenger Journeys m 672.1 31.4 23.6 106.0 24.1 Scheduled Service Operated % 97.4 (0.2) 0.2 2,289.0 97.4 - 0.3 Excess Wait Time, High Freq Routes mins 1.0 (0.1) (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) (0.1) Overall Customer Satisfaction scor 80 1 (1) 80 1 1 e Performance - Other Areas Cycle usage on TLRN (Index Mar 2000 = inde 213.1 14.7 41.9 250.1 10.1 32.6 x River100) Journeys '000 764.8 54.8 15.3 4,142.2 142.2 (27.0) Dial-a-Ride trips '000 398.3 (3.1) 31.8 1,345.2 (4.8) 90.5 Dial -a-Ride Overall Customer scor 90 (3) (2) 91 (2) (1) e : better than or equal to target; : within 5% of target; : 5% or more worse than target Tables may be subject to rounding
2.0 Bus passengers made more journeys than target in Quarter Four and 106.0 million more journeys than target over the full year. This reflects the impact of improved economic conditions compared to those expected at the time the target was set.
2.1 Passengers who are not required to pay fares made 20.1 per cent of journeys on London Buses in the quarter. These include journeys made by children, staff and police, but they do not include journeys by Freedom Pass holders, as TfL receives payment from the London boroughs for these.
2.2 In Quarter Four, London Buses operated 0.2 percentage points fewer scheduled services than target, mainly due to the disruption caused by the severe winter weather in December. However, in the full year, the target was achieved despite the severe weather, disruption by several major demonstrations, and the series of Tube strikes. London Buses continues to work with the Bus Operators to improve control of services during periods of disruption due to roadworks, introducing more resilient schedules where necessary.
2.3 Bus excess wait time (EWT) in the quarter, and in the full year, was better than target and a year ago. Reliability has been maintained through the use of Quality Incentive Contracts (QICs), combined with various initiatives to improve control of routes, including traffic signal re-timing and the full roll-out of iBus.
2.4 The London Buses Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) results were confirmed for Quarter Three as 78 points. This reflected the seasonal trend, as bus services are impacted by poor operating conditions. It may also reflect that this was the first time the survey was conducted by a new supplier. However, the score for Quarter Four indicates a significant improvement of 2 points, with scores increasing across all categories. In the full year, customer satisfaction with London Buses was 80 points, one point higher than target and last year.
2.5 In the full year, there were 10.5 crimes per million passenger journeys compared to the full year target of 10.2 crimes. However, although the crime reduction target was not achieved, compared to last year there has been a reduction of 4.1 per cent, representing
Page 188
1,027 fewer bus-related offences. This reflects a greater improvement than the reduction in crime London-wide of only 0.8 per cent.
2.6 Cycling on the TLRN (TfL Road Network) is measured by the average index of cycle flow. In Quarter Four, cycling increased significantly, compared to target and last year. The increased popularity of cycling in the quarter was attributed to the improved cycle infrastructure and exceptionally good weather. This was also reflected in the full year, for which the annual index for cycle flow on the TLRN was 250.1 index points. This was 10.0 index points higher than target and reflects year-on-year growth of 15.0 per cent.
2.7 Between July 2010 and April 2011, 117,095 members joined the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme. More than 3.65 million journeys have been made by scheme members and casual users, with casual users making 20 per cent of weekday journeys and 50 per cent of journeys at weekends.
2.8 901 people were killed and seriously injured on London’s roads in September to December 2010, a reduction of 20.1 per cent compared to last year and 13.5 per cent less than the reduction target. In 2010, compared to the reduction target, 8.8 per cent fewer people were killed or seriously injured on London’s roads,
2.9 In the quarter, river passengers made more journeys compared to target and last year. Although passenger numbers fell sharply during the severe winter weather in December, exceptionally warm weather encouraged high patronage later in the quarter. In the full year, passenger demand for river services was higher than target, but marginally lower than last year.
2.10 In the quarter, there were approximately 3,000 fewer Dial-a-Ride (DaR) journeys made compared to target. Trips delivered, in the quarter and in the full year, would have exceeded target but for the snow and icy conditions. In the full year, DaR delivered more than 1,345,000 trips, the highest number since the service was launched in the 1980s and, 7.2 per cent more than last year.
2.11 In the quarter and in the full year, overall customer satisfaction with DaR was slightly lower than target and last year. In the quarter, the overall score was driven by decreased satisfaction with booking services and punctuality and DaR is investigating other possible causes of below-target performance. However, the scores reflecting drivers’ customer service have remained high.
2.12 At year end, there were fewer full time equivalent staff (FTE) in Surface Transport compared to budget and last year. This was due to tighter controls exercised on approving recruitment pending planned organisational change programmes and delays in filling posts.
Page 189
Financial Performance
Full year 2010/11 Surface Transport £m Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status at Q3
Operating Income (1,684) (1,592) (92) (1,661) (23) Operating Expenditure (net 2,583 2,612 (30) 2,595 (13) of third party contributions) Net Operating 899 1,021 (122) 934 (36) Net Capital Expenditure 249 260 (11) 253 (4) Net Service Expenditure 1,148 1,281 (133) 1,188 (40)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
2.13 Operating income in the full year was higher than budget. This was largely due to higher income of £73 million from bus fares, driven by higher passenger demand, more journeys made by passengers paying full fares and the fares increase in January 2011 being based on a higher RPI base than expected in the budget.
2.14 Operating income in the full year was slightly higher than forecast at Quarter Three, driven by higher income from congestion charges and congestion charging enforcement. This was due to fewer than anticipated registrations for Auto-Pay, and image capture developments resulting in more penalty notices and higher recoveries.
2.15 Operating expenditure for the full year was £30 million lower than budget and was principally driven by savings in Roads, Traffic, Enforcement and Better Routes and Places and the rescheduling of work into 2011/12. This was partially offset by expenditure, originally budgeted for in 2009/10, on Barclays Cycle Hire. The lower operating expenditure compared to the Quarter Three forecast is mainly due to the rescheduling of work into 2011/12.
2.16 Capital expenditure for the full year was £11 million less than budget. This reflects programme changes and slippage on Barclays Cycle Superhighways, Barclays Cycle Hire, Bus infrastructure projects and London Routes and Places small schemes. These were partly offset by additional Congestion Charging systems work and the acceleration of the Blackwall Tunnel (Northbound) refurbishment programme.
Page 190
London Rail
Operational Performance
Quarter Four (Operating periods 10-13) Full Year Statu Vs Last Vs Statu Vs Last London Rail unit Actual Vs Target s Year Actual Target s Year DLR Passenger Journeys m 23.6 1.4 3.8 78.3 3.9 8.9 Scheduled Service Operated % 97.4 (0.6) 0.5 97.5 (0.5) 0.3 On time Performance % 97.4 1.4 1.4 97.4 1.4 2.6 Overall Customer Satisfaction scor 81 1 n/a 81 1 n/a e London Overground Passenger Journeys m Not available* On Time Performance % 94.9 1.7 1.7 94.9 1.7 1.7 (PPM Moving Annual Average) scor Overall Customer Satisfaction 83 8 n/a 80 5 n/a e Trams Passenger Journeys m 8.4 0.6 0.7 27.9 1.1 1.4 Scheduled Service Operated % 99.1 1.1 0.5 99.2 1.2 0.6 scor Overall Customer Satisfaction e 84 (2) (2) 86 - -
: better than or equal to target; : within 5% of target; : 5% or more worse than target Tables may be subject to rounding *Passenger load-weigh data is being assessed for future reporting
Docklands Light Railway (DLR)
3.0 In the quarter, DLR passengers made more journeys compared to target and last year. In the full year, the DLR carried 5.2 per cent more passengers than target, beating the forecast by 1.2 million passenger journeys and breaking the previous record set last year by nearly 9 million passenger journeys. More passengers are using the DLR due to additional train capacity, improving financial sector employment in the City and Docklands and less engineering work compared to last year.
3.1 The percentage of scheduled services operated by DLR was below target, but higher than the same quarter last year. This was due to severe winter weather, signalling and rolling stock issues, overcrowding at Bank and disruption on the Jubilee line at Canary Wharf causing Tube passengers to use DLR. As forecast, the full-year result of 97.5 per cent was 0.5 percentage points below target, but an improvement of 0.3 percentage points compared to last year.
3.2 In Quarter Four, and in the full year, 97.4 per cent of DLR services were on time. This was 1.4 percentage points higher than the Quarter Four target and an improvement of 0.5 percentage points compared to last quarter. This was achieved despite operational challenges at Canary Wharf during problems with the Jubilee line. In the full year, there was an improvement of 2.7 percentage points compared to last year.
3.3 The provisional score for the DLR Customer Satisfaction Survey in quarter three was confirmed as 80 points. In Quarter Four, the overall DLR customer satisfaction score was 81 points, an increase of 1 point compared with Quarter Three. Particularly encouraging Page 191
were significant improvements in on-train CSS scores where DLR has recently taken contractual action with the franchisee to drive improvements to train cleanliness.
London Overground (LO)
3.4 The LO passenger performance measure (PPM) is the percentage of trains arriving at their destination within five minutes of the time stated in the timetable. In the quarter, and in the full year, the moving annual average remained higher than target. For the full year, London Overground was the joint second highest performing train operator nationally and joint first in London & the South East.
3.5 At the start of the quarter, the last of the 3 car North London Railway fleet was converted to 4 car operation.
3.6 The new London Overground link, between Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington, opened, ahead of schedule, on Monday 28 February. This connected the East London Line to the North London Railway.
3.7 The eight East London Line core route stations managed by LOROL have been accredited under the DfT secure stations scheme, which means all LOROL managed stations are now accredited.
3.8 The provisional results of the London Rail Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) were available at the time of the Quarter Three report, so the final results are confirmed here. The Quarter Three score showed a decline to 79, from 81 in the previous quarter.
3.9 The results of the London Rail CSS are now available for Quarter Four, with an overall score of 83 points, an increase of 4 points compared with Quarter Three. This score was driven mainly by good operational performance, as well as the positive impact of the extension to Highbury & Islington of the East London Line, the increase to off- peak service frequencies on the Gospel Oak - Barking route, the impact of the new trains on the Gospel Oak - Barking route and station works on the Richmond - Stratford and Watford - Euston routes.
3.10 Overall satisfaction with London Overground, as measured by the National Passenger Survey, has increased from 82 (Autumn 2009) to 85 (Autumn 2010) and now stands ahead of the London & South East average of 83.
Trams
3.11 In the quarter, and in the full year, tram passengers made more journeys compared to target and last year. This was due to the recovery of passenger demand, now at a record level, following disruption from engineering work and poor economic conditions last year.
3.12 In the quarter, and throughout the year, a higher percentage of tram services was operated compared to target and last year. This reflects improved rolling stock performance and was achieved despite the severe winter weather conditions at the start of the quarter and an incident on 22 December that resulted in a collision between two trams in which no one was injured. A full investigation has been conducted.
3.13 In the full year, customer satisfaction scores for Trams are the highest of any of the major TfL operating divisions, with Quarter Four CSS at 84 points. While this is a strong Page 192
performance compared to other operating divisions, it is two points below the previous year and target. Significant movement has been noted on perception of exterior tram cleanliness and condition, the primary driver of which is believed to be the poor performance of the tram wash facility and a rectification package has been proposed by the manufacturers.
London Rail
3.14 Compared to budget, there were 14 more (6.7 per cent) London Rail FTE at year end. This was mainly due to the in-sourcing of Trams infrastructure maintenance staff and the retention of staff to assist in the commercial close of the main works contract of the East London Line project.
Financial Performance
Full year 2010/11 London Rail £m Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status at Q3 Operating Operating Income (200) (167) (33) (185) (15) Operating Expenditure (net of third party 303 337 (33) 318 (14) contributions) Net Operating 103 169 (66) 132 (29) Net Capital Expenditure 175 248 (73) 166 9 Net Service Expenditure 279 417 (139) 299 (20)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
3.15 Operating income in the full year was higher than budget and forecast, primarily due to the receipt of compensation for the late delivery of trains. It also reflects fewer engineering works, the recovery of employment in Docklands and higher fares income from increased patronage on the DLR due to capacity enhancements.
3.16 Operating expenditure in the full year was £33 million lower than budget, mainly due to delays in the North London Rail (NLR) station upgrade, although progress improved in Quarter Four. It also reflects savings in the London Overground concession.
3.17 Operating expenditure, net of third party contributions, was lower than forecast in the full year. This was driven by savings in the DLR concession, infrastructure maintenance and overheads, lower expenditure on rolling stock and NLR station upgrade delays.
3.18 Capital expenditure in the full year was £73 million lower than budget. This was mainly due to main works’ cost revisions and programme changes in ELL phase 2; savings in capacity enhancement work, as well as works moved to next year; Stratford International extension works slipped into next year; and, further underspends on rolling stock, Beckton depot and DLR station works.
3.19 Capital expenditure in the full-year was £9 million higher than forecast, mainly relating to higher expenditure on NLRIP, reflecting better progress than expected.
Page 193
Crossrail
Financial Performance
Full year 2010/11 Crossrail £m Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status at Q3 Net Capital Expenditure 669 734 (66) 682 (14)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
4.0 Net capital expenditure in Crossrail in the full year was £66 million lower than budget and £14 million lower than forecast at Quarter Three. These variances reflect lower spend on direct construction costs due to delayed procurement schedules and contract start dates, partly offset by costs incurred in Quarter Four, relating to the revised Canary Wharf Development Agreement, where Crossrail is recognising the full value of work to date, rather than at completion.
4.1 With the award of the last remaining tunnelling contracts announced shortly after the end of the quarter (on 7 April), all 21 kilometres of twin bore tunnelling works are now let. Corporate Directorates
Financial Performance
Full year 2010/11 Corporate Directorates £m Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status at Q3 Operating Operating Income (66) (37) (30) (66) (1) Operating Expenditure (net 298 304 (6) 320 (21) of third party contributions) Net Operating 231 267 (35) 254 (22) Net Capital Expenditure 3 24 (21) 10 (7) Net Service Expenditure 234 291 (56) 264 (29)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
5.0 Operating income in the full year was in line with forecast and higher than budget, mainly due to income received for the surrender of accommodation leases and recovery of project costs.
5.1 In the full year, operating expenditure, net of third party contributions, was £6 million lower than budget. This included re-phasing of implementation costs for the accommodation strategy, lower IM and accommodation operating costs, insurance and staff savings, and efficiencies in Planning from bringing work in-house. This was partially offset by re- classification of IM capital expenditure as operating expenditure.
5.2 Operating expenditure, net of third party contributions, was £21 million lower than forecast at Quarter Three. This was mainly due IM savings and project delays, savings realised at the closure of the Prestige contract, underspends on the Operating Cost Review (OCR) Page 194
accommodation strategy and additional accommodation cost recovery agreed with the operating businesses.
5.3 Net capital expenditure in the full year was £21 million lower than budget and £7 million lower than forecast. This was mainly due to capital income in the full year, of £12 million higher than budget and £6 million higher than forecast, due to better than expected income from property sales. Capital expenditure in the full year was £10 million below budget, mainly due to due to IM project delays and the re-classification of some IM capital expenditure as operating expenditure.
5.4 At year end, there were 70 (3.7 per cent) fewer staff than budgeted for in the Corporate Directorates. Staff numbers were within budget in all areas, except Group Marketing and Communications where permanent staff exceeded budget by 28 FTE and temporary staff exceeded budget by 19 FTE. This was due to the restructure of Group Customer Services and additional contractors working on the Contact Centre Transformation Programme and Journey Planner projects.
Group Items
Full year 2010/11 Group Items Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status £m at Q3
Interest Income (9) (5) (4) (7) (2) Debt Servicing 257 270 (13) 259 (3) Contingency/Other Group (9) 291 (300) 132 (141) Items Total Group Items 239 556 (317) 384 (145)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
6.0 Debt servicing costs in the full year were lower than budget and forecast due to the introduction of the Commercial Paper programme and active deferral of corporate borrowing to the latter part of the financial year.
6.1 In the full year, the requirement for contingency, compared to budget, was far lower than anticipated. This was due to the flat-phasing of the contingency budget and the variable nature of expenditure, where the funds are drawn down as required. In addition, the budget for the purchase of Piccadilly line rolling stock (included in other Group Items) was not used because of the decision to rephase the Line Upgrade.
6.2 The forecast for contingency at Quarter Three was adjusted to reflect a lower requirement, but again the need for such contingency was far lower than expected.
Savings Programme
Actual Forecast at Forecast Savings £m Target Variance 2010/11 Q3 Variance
Corporate and Group Wide 144 135 9 135 9 London Rail 9 8 1 9 - London Underground 335 247 88 288 47
Page 195
Surface Transport 142 136 5 142 - Gross 630 526 104 574 56 Implementation Costs (42) (79) 37 (62) 20 Net 587 447 140 512 77
Highlights 7.0 On a gross basis £630 million of savings were delivered during 2010/11, £104 million above target. This result reflects a continued improvement, with a further £56 million of savings being identified since the Quarter Three forecast. 7.1 £47 million of the additional savings relate to London Underground and £9 million relate to Corporate and Group-Wide areas. London Underground’s additional savings comprise a mixture of one-off savings including a revised approach to engineering closures and thus a reduced need for rail replacement bus services, accelerating savings within Operations and incremental savings around the capital programme. Additional savings of £9 million in Corporate and Group-Wide areas were composed of many small activities. 7.2 Implementation costs were £42 million, £37 million below target and £20 million below the Quarter Three. The final net savings position for 2010/11 of £585 million was £140 million better than target. £15 million of the reduced costs related to lower than expected voluntary severance costs for London Underground staff. This reduction was partially due to a more efficient redeployment process that enabled staff displaced to take up other roles previously undertaken by non-permanent labour. 7.3 Total cumulative net savings delivered since the programme began are £800million, £216 million (37 per cent) ahead of target. Savings delivered so far make up 10 per cent of TfL’s £7.6 billion efficiencies programme and £2.8 billion of savings (some 35 per cent) have been secured by actions completed so far.
Balance sheet
Transport for London Group Balance Sheet at year end Variance to Actual £m Budget Fixed Assets – (higher) / lower than budget 23,697 240 Stocks, Debtors and Payments in Advance – (higher) / lower than budget 965 (201) Cash – (higher) / lower than budget 2,074 (1,115) Creditors and Receipts in Advance-higher / (lower) than budget (3,365) 194 External Borrowings – higher / (lower) than budget (6,387) (63) Deferred Capital Grant – higher / (lower) than budget (11,407) (12) Provisions – higher / (lower) than budget (2,695) 11 Total Net Assets – (higher) / lower than budget 2,882 (946)
8.0 Fixed assets were £240 million lower than budget. This was mainly due to lower capital expenditure, including Crossrail, of £271 million, noted in the activity summary. In addition, depreciation was higher and disposals were lower than assumed in the budget and actual include property revaluations which are not included in the budget.
Page 196
8.1 Stocks, Debtors and Payments in advance were £201 million higher than budget. This was largely due the main payment of the Business Rates Supplement direct contribution of £169 million for Crossrail, originally budgeted to be received before year end, which is not now expected until Quarter One 2011/12. Rail for London (RfL) has a prepayment of £25 million because contractual project payments currently exceed the value of work done. Negotiations continue on the pain-share element of the contract. 8.2 Cash was £1,115 million higher than budget. This improvement was largely due to the activity underspend of £1,318 million shown in the activity summary. This saving was partially offset by £109 million reduction in Transport Grant following a revised settlement from the Government, and a £63 million reduction in borrowing compared to budget, with the remainder of the difference due to working capital changes. 8.3 Creditors were £194 million higher than budget, primarily in Crossrail and Tube Lines reflecting weighting of expenditure towards year end. In a similar vein, DLR’s creditors were £46 million higher than budget due to ongoing works at Stratford International, which were expected to be completed before year end. The balance reflects trading variances in other companies across the group. 8.4 External borrowings were £63 million lower than budget. This was due to a reduction in borrowing of £105 million, following deferral of the purchase of Piccadilly Line rolling stock, a £93 million reduction due to borrowings acquired with the Tube Lines acquisition (for Northern Line rolling stock), offset by additional borrowing of £135 million for repayment of Tube Lines C&D notes. 8.5 Deferred grant was £11 million lower than budget mainly due to lower receipts from third parties. 8.6 Provisions were £11 million higher than budget. This was principally due to higher Crossrail related property provisions in TfL, due to lower than budgeted cash payments. It should be noted that although LU’s overall provision did not vary to budget materially, this was the result of a release of an environmental harm provision of £27 million and voluntary severance provision of £9 million offset by provisions of £41 million for claims. Forecast Actual Variance to Transport for London Group Balance Sheet at the year end Q3 Forecast £m Fixed Assets – (higher) / lower than budget 23,697 (41) Stocks, Debtors and Payments in Advance – (higher) / lower than budget 965 (174) Cash – (higher) / lower than budget 2,074 (532) Creditors and Receipts in Advance-higher / (lower) than budget (3,365) 352 Prudential Borrowings – higher / (lower) than budget (6,387) - Deferred Capital Grant – higher / (lower) than budget (11,407) (75) Provisions – higher / (lower) than budget (2,695) 234 Total Net Assets – (higher) / lower than budget 2,882 (236)
8.7 Fixed assets were £41 million higher than forecast. Capital expenditure activity was £22 million below forecast but, as above, the actual number includes (unbudgeted) year-end property revaluations.
Page 197
8.8 Stocks, Debtors and Payments in advance were £174 million higher than forecast. This was mainly due to the Business Rates Supplement of £169 million for Crossrail. Cash was £532 million higher than forecast. The improvement was mainly driven by the under spend of £348 million in activity, as shown in the activity summary. The remainder was due to improvements in working capital balances, including higher creditors and provisions, offset by higher debtors, due to the Business Rates Supplement Grant being deferred into 2011/12. Creditors were £352 million higher than forecast, as above, primarily in Crossrail, Tube Lines and London Rail reflecting weighting of expenditure towards year end. 8.9 Deferred grant was £75 million lower than forecast, of which £5 million was lower third party contributions, with the balance reflecting the non cash effect of the grant accounting process. 8.10 Provisions, of £234 million higher than forecast, were due to the Tube Lines pension provision of £83 million, higher claims in London Underground £44 million and higher Crossrail property provisions in Tfl due to lower cash settlement.
Page 198
Appendix one: Operational Summary 2010/11 Quarter Four Full Year Vs Vs Key Performance Indicator Unit Actual Status LY Actual Status LY target target Contextual Indicators Service Demand Passenger Journeys – LU m 327.3 20.8 317.9 1,107.3 70.3 1,064.7 Passenger Journeys – Buses m 672.1 31.4 648.5 2,289.0 106.0 2,264.9 Passenger Journeys – DLR m 23.6 1.4 19.8 78.3 3.9 69.4 Passenger Journeys – Trams m 8.4 0.6 7.8 27.9 1.1 26.5 Passenger Journeys - River Services '000s 764.8 54.8 749.5 4,142.2 142.2 4,169.2 Total Trips - Dial a Ride '000s 398.3 (3.1) 366.5 1,345.2 (4.8) 1,254.7
Supporting Economic Development % Scheduled Services Operated - Buses % 97.4 (0.2) 97.2 97.4 - 97.1 % Scheduled Services Operated – LU % 95.6 (0.6) 96.8 95.6 (0.7) 96.6 % Scheduled Services Operated - DLR % 97.4 (0.6) 97.0 97.5 (0.5) 97.2 % Scheduled Services Operated - Trams % 99.1 1.1 98.6 99.2 1.2 98.6 Excess Journey Time (Weighted) – LU Mins 6.3 (0.4) 6.0 6.5 (0.2) 6.4 Excess Wait Time, High Freq Routes - Buses Mins 1.0 (0.1) (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 1.1 On Time Performance – DLR % 97.4 1.4 96.0 97.4 1.4 94.8 On Time Performance (PPM MAA) - LO % 94.9 1.7 93.2 94.9 1.7 93.2 Cycle usage on TLRN (Index Mar 2000 = Index 213.1 14.7 171.2 250.1 10.1 217.5 100)
Quality of Life Overall Customer Satisfaction – LU Score 79 - 78 79 - 79 Overall Customer Satisfaction - Buses Score 80 1 81 80 1 79 Overall Customer Satisfaction – DLR Score 81 1 n/a 81 1 n/a Overall Customer Satisfaction - Trams Score 84 (2) 86 86 - 86 Overall Customer Satisfaction – LO Score 83 8 n/a 80 5 n/a National Passenger Survey – LO Score 85 n/a 82 83 n/a 79 Overall Customer Satisfaction - Dial-a-Ride Score 90 (3) 91 91 (2) 92
Ensuring Safety and Security Number of killed or seriously injured people # 901 (141) 1,128 2,815 (273) 3,227 on roads - Londonwide* Recorded Crime (per million journeys) - # Not yet available. To be reported to the TfL Board LU/DLR ** Recorded Crime (per million journeys) - # 10.7 0.5 (0.7) 10.5 0.3 11.1 Buses **
: better than or equal to target; : within 5% of target; : 5% or more worse than target
Tables may be subject to rounding LY = Prior Year * Due to the reporting process and nature of road traffic accident data the latest data available and included in the Q4 section above is for Sept – Dec 2010 **Data for recorded crime is for calendar year 2010.
Page 199
Appendix two: Financial Summary
Full Year 2010/11 Actual Budg Varianc Status Foreca Variance Status £m et e st at Q3 forecast
Fares income - LU, Buses and LR (3,183) (3,005) (178) (3,168) (16) Other income (722) (626) (96) (679) (44) Total operating income (3,906) (3,631) (275) (3,847) (59)
Operating expenditure (net of third party contributions) 5,245 5,698 (453) 5,364 (119)
Operating margin 1,339 2,067 (727) 1,518 (178)
Interest income and debt payments 248 265 (17) 252 (4) Contingency/other group items (9) 291 (300) 132 (141) Total group items 239 556 (317) 384 (145)
Margin 1,578 2,623 (1,045) 1,902 (324)
Capital income (including property (45) (29) (17) (38) (7) sales) Capital expenditure 1,964 2,170 (205) 1,973 (8) Third party contributions (81) (96) 15 (86) 5
Net capital expenditure (excl 1,838 2,045 (207) 1,849 (11) Crossrail)
Net service expenditure (excl 3,416 4,668 (1,252) 3,751 (334) Crossrail)
Capital expenditure - Crossrail 669 734 (66) 682 (14)
Net service expenditure (TfL) 4,085 5,402 (1,318) 4,433 (348)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
Page 200
Operating Income
Full Year 2010/11 2009/10 Operating Income Actual Budge Varianc Status Forecas Varianc Status Full Year £m t e t at Q3 e (1,769) London Underground (1,910) (1,792) (118) (1,891) (19) - Tube Lines (46) (43) (2) (44) (2) (1,549) Surface Transport (1,684) (1,592) (92) (1,661) (23) (131) London Rail (200) (167) (33) (185) (15) (44) Group Directorates (66) (37) (29) (66) (1) Total Operating (3,494) (3,906) (3,631) (275) (3,847) (59) Income
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
Operating Expenditure Full Year 2010/11 Operating Actual Budge Varianc Status Forecas Var ianc Status 2009/10 Expenditure - net of t e t at Q3 e Full Year third party £m 2,459 London Underground 1,774 2,130 (356) 1,835 (60) - Tube Lines 287 316 (28) 297 (10) 2,611 Surface Transport 2,583 2,612 (30) 2,595 (13) 281 London Rail 303 337 (33) 318 (14) 374 Group Directorates 298 303 (6) 320 (22) Total Operating 5,725 5,245 5,698 (453) 5,364 (119) Expenditure
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
Capital Expenditure Full Year 2010/11 Net Capital Actual Budget Variance Status Forecast Variance Status 2009/10 Expenditure at Q3 Full Year £m (1) London Underground (5) - (5) (4) (1) - Tube Lines - - - (5) Surface Transport - - - - - (0) London Rail - - - - - (102) Group Directorates (40) (29) (12) (34) (6) Capital Income (excl (108) (45) (29) (17) (38) (7) Crossrail) 1,098 London Underground 1,242 1,261 (19) 1,223 19 - Tube Lines 174 252 (79) 201 (27) 166 Surface Transport 249 260 (11) 253 (4) 536 London Rail 176 248 (72) 167 9 114 Group Directorates 43 53 (10) 44 (1) Capital Expenditure 1,913 – net of third party 1,883 2,074 (191) 1,887 (4) contributions Net Capital (Exc 1,805 1,838 2,045 (207) 1,849 (11) Crossrail) 989 Crossrail 669 734 (66) 682 (14)
Page 201
2,795 Net Capital (TfL) 2,507 2,780 (273) 2,531 (24)
(Underspend)/(Higher income) or equal to budget = Overspend/Lower income by 5% or less = Overspend/Lower income by more than 5% = Tables may be subject to rounding
Page 202
Appendix three: Balance Sheet
Balance Sheet £m Actual Budget Variance Forecast Varianc at Q3 e Fixed Assets Tangible Assets 23,697 23,937 240 23,656 (41)
Current Assets Stocks 37 26 (11) 43 6 Debtors 541 501 (40) 493 (48) Capital Debtors 2 10 8 24 22 Payments in Advance 385 227 (158) 231 (154) Cash at Bank and in Hand 2,074 959 (1,115) 1,542 (532)
Current Liabilities Revenue (1,366) (1,171) 195 (1,042) 324 Receipts in Advance (297) (306) (9) (277) 20 Capital (398) (406) (8) (400) (2)
Long Term Liabilities Creditors Due after One Year (1,304) (1,288) 16 (1,294) 10 External Borrowings (6,387) (6,450) (63) (6,387) - Capital Grants (11,407) (11,419) (12) (11,482) (75) Other Provisions (469) (458) 11 (318) 151 Pension Provision (2,226) (2,226) - (2,143) 83
Total Net Assets 2,882 1,936 (946) 2,646 (236)
Capital and Reserves Earmarked Reserves 1,652 727 (925) 1,336 (316) Pension Reserves (2,143) (2,143) - (2,143) - General Fund 154 154 - 154 - Other Reserves 3,219 3,198 (21) 3,299 80 Total Capital Employed 2,882 1,936 (946) 2,646 (236) CRL Sponsor funding account 1,010 782 (228) 811 (199) Other cash 1,064 177 (887) 731 (333) Total as above 2,074 959 (1,115) 1,542 (532)
Page 203
Appendix four: Cash Summary
Cash Summary In / (Out) Flow Full Year 2010/11 £m Actual Budget Variance Forecast Variance at Q3
Margin (from Appendix 2) (1,578) (2,623) (1,045) (1,902) (324) Working Capital Movements (2,118) (2,087) 31 (2,284) (166) Cash Spend on Operating Activities (3,696) (4,710) (1,014) (4,186) (490)
Net Capital Expenditure (from (1,838) (2,046) (207) (1,849) (11) AppendixCrossrail 2)(from Appendix 2) (669) (734) (66) (682) (14) Working Capital Movements (33) (33) - (53) (20) Cash Spend on Capital Activities (2,540) (2,813) (273) (2,584) (44)
Funded by: Transport and Other Grants 4,520 4,629 109 4,522 2 Precept Funding 12 12 - 12 - Prudential Borrowing 2,269 2,332 63 2,269 - Total Funding 6,801 6,973 172 6,803 2
Net Movement in Cash 565 (550) (1,115) 33 (532)
Page 204
Agenda Item 6
Subject: 2011 -12 GLA Group Budget – Comparison of Mayor’s Budget with Final Functional Body Approved Budget Report to: Budget Monitoring Sub Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Resources Date: 19 July 2011 This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out the final revenue budgets and capital spending plans which have been agreed by each functional body for 2011-12 and how these compare to the Mayor’s budget approved in February 2011.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the content of this report. 3. Background 3.1 The Budget and Performance Committee has requested that it be provided with a summary of the final budget and capital spending plans for 2011-12 for each functional body. The corresponding information for 2010-11 was presented to the Budget Monitoring Sub Committee in July 2010 and the same reporting mechanism is being used for 2011-12. 3.2 The budget data presented in the Appendices to this report reflects the most recent approvals by the Board or full Authority meeting as appropriate and in respect of the core GLA by the Mayor. These final budgets will reflect more timely information than was available when the Mayor’s approved budget was set on 23 February. This will include the impact of updated information on the impact of the forecast outturn for 2010-11 (including slippage) on the 2011-12 budget, more robust information on government grant and other revenue streams, the impact of TfL’s business plan for 2011-12 to 2014-15 issued in March and the implications of the final funding settlement agreed for the LDA on its own as well as the core GLA’s budget. 3.3 The schedules in the Appendices illustrate the difference between the Mayor’s approved 2011-12 budget and capital spending plans published in February and these final budgets. A commentary is also provided where the differences s compared to the Mayor’s budget are considered material. While the gross expenditure and income budgets and the forecast use of reserves may differ compared to the Mayor’s February approval the budget and council tax requirements are unchanged. Under the GLA Act it is the component and consolidated budget requirements which the Mayor is required to set and which the Assembly s consulted on under the GLA Act.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 205
Greater London Authority Budget (Appendix 1) 3.4 The final GLA budget presented in Appendix 1 is consistent with that approved by the Mayor in Mayoral Decision 771 ‘GLA Budget and Strategic Plan Deliverables for 2011-12’ (see http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions/md771 ). This budget differs from the Mayor’s February approved budget in the allocation of the contingency of over £10m of which £2m was allocated to provide additional funding for London and Partners in its first year and £4.2m was set aside to finance borrowing of up to £41.9m in 2011-12. The budgets will not reflect the impact of subsequent revisions to the GLA budget (e.g. the contribution of up to £3m relating to Visit London’s pension liabilities) – these will be reported to the Sub-Committee during the year through the quarterly monitoring process for 2011-12. 3.5 This additional £41.9m of borrowing is reflected in the revised capital spending plan for the GLA and is being applied to fund activities within LDA’s current remit. Out of this borrowing £15m is budgeted to be applied to finance the Outer London Development Fund, £13.5m for regeneration programmes, £8m for the Olympics and Sport and £5.4m for climate change capital projects. The Assembly budget has not changed materially since the Mayor’s February approved budget. Metropolitan Police Authority (Appendix 2)
3.6 The final MPA budget presented in Appendix 2 is consistent with that approved by its full authority meeting on 31 March (Item 6: London Policing Plan for 2011-2014). The Mayor’s approved budget in February 2011 reported the Metropolitan Police Service’s Directorate expenditure gross of Home Office and other specific grants (including counter-terrorism funding and the Neighbourhood Policing or ‘PCSO’ grant) totalling £517m. The Mayor’s approved revenue budget for the MPA is represented in Appendix 2 with those grants netted off against the Directorate to which they are allocated in order to allow a like for like comparison with the MPA’s final budget. London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (Appendix 3) 3.7 The final LFEPA revenue budget takes account additional savings of around £14m for 2011-12 agreed at its 22 March full Authority meeting and its subsequent meeting on 24 June. This includes a reduction in the central contingency for inflation of just under £9m (of which £6.2m was agreed in March and £2.7m in June) – one of the main contributors to LFEPA’s provisional underspend for 2011-12 of £22.6m. In addition £4m of non staff, £0.6m of operational staff and £0.8m of FRS staff savings were agreed at the 24 June meeting of the Authority. A full list of the additional £8m savings agreed at the June meeting are set out in Appendices 1 to 3 to the June LFEPA Authority paper: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/FEP1742%281%29.pdf 3.8 The effect of these additional savings – allied to revised assumptions on interest payments and receipts and confirmed specific grant allocations - has been to reduce the planned draw down of reserves in 2011-12 from £19.3m to £6.1m. These savings will enable reserves to be maintained to support LFEPA’s budgets in future years. This is in recognition of the fact that the formula grant reductions for fire authorities are back ended which will mean that around 18% of the 25% reduction will be applied to the sector in the final two years of the CSR period (2013-14 and 2014- 15). Transport for London (Appendix 4) 3.9 The figures used for the Mayor’s February approved budget for Transport for London were made following the announcement of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review but before it had prepared its revised business plan which reflected the impact of the settlement agreed with the Secretary of State for Transport. As was made clear at the time, there was only sufficient time
Page 206
therefore to reflect the impact of the Spending Review on TfL at a very high level in the Mayor’s approved budget. 3.10 Transport for London’s business plan for 2011-12 to 2014-15 and its final budget for 2011-12 were approved at the 31 March meeting of its Board. These reflected both the detailed impact of the CSR settlement and more up to date information on performance and the forecast financial outturn for 2010-11. The TfL budget reflects some significant changes in both structure and detail compared to the Mayor’s February approved budget. The analysis at Appendix 4 illustrates the main differences between the two budgets at a high level. London Development Agency (Appendix 5) 3.11 The final LDA budget presented in Appendix 5 is consistent with that approved by its Board meeting on 16 March. It reflects the impact of the final settlement which has been agreed with the Government for the CSR period, more timely information on the forecast outturn for 2010-11 and the consequential impact of funding allocations made including those being financed by the GLA through prudential borrowing (e.g. the Outer London Development Fund). Performance against the LDA’s budget will be monitored closely during 2011-12 to facilitate a smooth transition once the Agency is abolished on 31 March 2012. 4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 The sub Committee is invited to note the final budget’s approved for each functional body and the GLA for 2011-12. Performance against these budgets will be reported to the Sub-Committee on a quarterly basis. 5. Legal Implications
5.1 There are no direct legal implications arising from the report. 6. Financial Implications
6.1 Financial issues are integral to the report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – GLA (Mayor and Assembly) Final Revenue Budget and Capital Spending Plan for 2011-12 Appendix 2 – Metropolitan Police Authority Final Revenue Budget and Capital Spending Plan for 2011-12 Appendix 3 – London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Final Revenue Budget and Capital Spending Plan for 2011-12 Appendix 4 – Transport for London Final Revenue Budget and Capital Spending Plan for 2011-12 Appendix 5 – London Development Agency Final Revenue Budget and Capital Spending Plan for 2011-12 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Martin Mitchell Telephone: 020 7983 4145 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 207 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 208 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Appendix 1 Greater London Authority Mayor’s Revenue Budget Mayor's Final Change Reason for Change Original Budget (if material) Approved Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 Service/directorate analysis £m £m £m Mayor’s Private Office 3.4 3.4 0.0 Chief Executive 0.7 0.7 0.0 Elections 15.2 15.2 0.0 External Affairs 6.3 6.3 0.0 Communities & Intelligence 8.4 8.4 0.0 Development & Environment 6.4 6.4 0.0 London 2012 1.9 1.9 0.0 Resources 22.2 22.2 0.0 Olympic Funding Agreement 60.3 60.3 0.0 Museum of London 7.7 7.7 0.0 London Waste and Recycling Board 9.5 9.5 0.0 14.0 16.0 2.0 Use of contingency to Promote London (London & Partners) increase funding in year 1 Events, Design Festival and Fashion 2.7 2.7 0.0 Week GLA activities formerly funded by 2.6 2.6 0.0 LDA Capital financing (Crossrail) 57.0 57.0 0.0 Capital financing (LDA projects) 0.0 4.2 4.2 Use of contingency Rough sleepers initiatives 8.4 8.4 0.0 Housing moves service (new grant) 0.4 0.4 0.0 Community safety (new grant) 10.6 10.6 0.0 Contingency for GLA Group budget 10.2 3.3 -6.9 Contingency applied GLA Transition costs relating to LDA 0.0 0.7 0.7 Capital financed by revenue/reserves 0.9 0.9 0.0 Net service expenditure 248.9 248.9 0.0 Interest receipts -1.1 -1.1 0.0 Council Tax freeze specific grant -23.2 -23.2 0.0 Other specific grants -11.0 -11.0 0.0 Crossrail Business Rate Supplement -57.0 -57.0 0.0 Net revenue expenditure 156.6 156.6 0.0 Transfer to/from reserves -9.5 -9.5 0.0 Budget requirement 147.1 147.1 0.0
Page 209 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Mayor’s Capital Spending Plan for GLA GLA capital plan Mayor's Final Change Reason for Change Original Budget (if material) Approved Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 £m £m £m City Hall City Hall – lease related 0.1 0.1 0.0 – non-lease related 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total City Hall 0.2 0.2 0.0 ICT Infrastructure PC Base Units 0.1 0.1 0.0 Monitors 0.1 0.1 0.0 Printers 0.1 0.1 0.0 Servers/File Storage/Uninterrupted Power 0.3 0.3 0.0 Supply) MS Software Licenses - - 0.0 Laptops - - 0.0 Total ICT Infrastructure 0.5 0.5 0.0 ICT Development Technology Group – Development Budget 0.1 0.1 0.0 Website Development 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total ICT Development 0.2 0.2 0.0 Capital Grant to Museum of London 1.6 1.6 0.0 Priority Parks & Street Trees Programme 1.8 1.8 0.0 Funding for LDA Functions (GLA 0.0 41.9 41.9 Up to £15m for Outer Borrowing) London Development Fund, £13.5m for Regeneration, £8m for Olympics related projects and Sport and £3.4m for Climate Change Contributions to Crossrail (Borrowing and 868.0 871.6 3.6 £3m of Crossrail Direct Contribution) payments b/f from 2010-11 A Sporting Future for London 3.0 3.0 0.0 Total Capital Expenditure 875.3 920.8 45.5
Page 210 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Mayor’s Capital Spending Plan for GLA (continued) GLA capital plan Mayor's Final Change Reason for Change Original Budget (if material) Approved Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 £m £m £m GLA capital plan Funding: Revenue – Core GLA 0.2 0.2 0.0 Prudential Borrowing (Crossrail) 700.0 700.0 0.0 Prudential Borrowing (Museum of London) 1.6 1.6 0.0 Prudential Borrowing (LDA Functions) 0.0 41.9 41.9 Funding for projects as set out above Business Rate Supplement (Revenue 168.0 171.6 3.6 BRS Revenue to fund contribution) additional payment to TfL (c/f from 2010-11) Accommodation, Asset Replacement and 0.7 0.7 0.0 Adaptation Reserve Capital receipts - - - External funding 4.8 4.8 - Total funding 875.3 920.8 45.5 London Assembly Revenue Budget Service analysis Mayor's Final Change Reason for Change Original Budget (if material) Approved Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 £m £m £m Assembly Members 1.7 1.7 0.0 Member Services 2.4 2.4 0.0 Scrutiny & Investigations 1.1 1.1 0.0 Committee Services 0.5 0.5 0.0 External Relations 0.3 0.3 0.0 Director/Business Support 0.5 0.5 0.0 Elections & Special Projects 0.1 0.1 0.0 London TravelWatch 1.4 1.4 0.0
Net service expenditure 8.0 8.0 0.0 Interest receipts - - 0.0 Net revenue expenditure 8.0 8.0 0.0
Transfer to/ from reserves - - - Budget requirement 8.0 8.0 0.0
Page 211 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Appendix 2 Metropolitan Police Authority MPA Revenue Budget Service analysi s Mayor's Mayor's MPA Change Reason for Change Approved Approved Approved (if material) Budget (Grossed Budget Final up specific grant (Revised budget presentation) 1 specific grant presentation)
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m £m Territorial Policing 1,461.1 1,339.4 1,332.2 -7.2 Transport Budgets centralised into HR (-£9.9m) Police Officer matched funding scheme (funded from Centrally Held +£2.8m) Specialist Crime 436.5 422.6 417.9 -4.7 Transport Budgets centralised Directorate into HR/Centrally Held (- £4.7m) Specialist 283.1 4.4 4.3 -0.1 Operations Central Operations 220.5 195.3 195.2 -0.1 Transport Budgets centralised (CO) into HR (-£3.1m) Savings no longer achievable (funded from Centrally Held +£3m) Olympics 59.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Olympics expenditure reallocated within relevant directorates Resources 240.1 228.1 215.4 -12.7 Transport Budgets centralised Directorate into HR (£-0.1m) Saving re Impact on DoI Safer Neighbourhoods roll out, transfer to DoI (+£2.3m) International Financing Reporting Standards implementation resulting in a transfer to Capital Financing Costs (-£14.9m) Directorate of 205.7 201.9 199.4 -2.5 Transport Budgets centralised Information (DoI) into HR (£-0.2m) Saving re Impact on DoI Safer Neighbourhoods roll out, transfer from Directorate of Resource (-£2.3m) Human Resources 125.3 124.6 150.6 26.0 Centralised Transport Budgets Directorate (HR) (+£15m), Saving re Staff Terms and Conditions, held centrally pending allocation to Business Groups (+£10m) Non achievement of saving offset by increased use of reserves (+£1m)
Page 212 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 MPA Revenue Budget (cont) Service analysis Mayor's Mayor's MPA Change Reason for Change Approved Approved Approved (if material) Budget (Grossed Budget Final up specific grant (Revised budget presentation) specific grant presentation)
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m £m Directorate of 6.7 6.5 6.5 0.0 Public Affairs (DPA) Deputy 53.9 52.9 52.5 -0.4 Transport Budgets centralised Commissioner’s into HR/Centrally held (- Portfolio (DC) £0.4m) Discretionary 33.1 33.1 33.1 0.0 Pensions costs Centrally held 88.5 88.5 76.3 -12.2 Centralised Transport Budgets budgets (CH) (to be allocated +£3.4m) Saving re Staff Terms and Conditions, (formerly HR) held centrally pending allocation to Business Groups (-£10m) Saving no longer achievable (Central operations -£3m) Police Officer matched funding scheme (Territorial Policing - £2.8m) MPA/ Mayor's 12.7 12.7 12.7 0.0 Office for Police and Crime (MOPC) Savings to be 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 agreed Net service 3,226.7 2,710.0 2,696.1 -13.9 expenditure Capital financing 38.6 38.6 53.5 14.9 Change arises due to costs introduction in International Financial Reporting Standards resulting in a transfer from Directorate of Resources (£14.9m) Interest receipts -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 0.0 Specific grants -516.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net revenue 2,747.8 2,747.8 2,748.8 1.0 expenditure Transfers to/from -34.8 -34.8 -35.8 -1.0 Increase d use of reserves to reserves balance to the MPA budget requirement Budget 2,713.0 2,713.0 2,713.0 0.0 requirement 1. The Mayor’s approved budget in February 2011 presented MPS Directorate expenditure gross of Home Office and other specific grants totalling £517m. The Mayor’s budget is represented in the second column ‘Revised specific grant allocation’ with those grants netted off against the Directorate to which they are allocated in order to allow a like for like comparison with the MPA’s final budget.
Page 213 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 MPA Capital Spending Plan Provisioning Department Mayor's MPA Change Reason for Change Approved Approved (if material) Budget Final Budget
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m £m Directorate of Information 97.7 90.1 -7.6 Directorate of Information budget reduced offset by reduction in overprogramming Propert y Services 108.3 108.3 0.0 Transport Services 16 16.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Equipment from 0.3 0.3 0.0 Ad Hoc Providers Total Programme 222.3 214.7 0.0
less : Over -programming -45.1 -37.5 7.6
Capital Spending Plan 177.2 177.2 7.6 Funding Sources Police Capital Grant 14.4 14.4 0.0 Other Grants & Third Party 6.1 6.1 0.0 Contributionsp Capital Reserves 3.1 3.1 0.0 Capital Receipts 40.0 40.0 0.0 Revenue contribution 19.0 19.0 0.0 Service Improvement Funds 0.0 0.0 0.0 Specific Grant: 0.0 2012 Olympic and 14.0 14.0 0.0 Paralympic Games Counter -Terrorism 12.6 12.6 0.0 ACPO Terrorism and Allied 0.0 0.0 0.0 Matters Borrowing 68.0 68.0 0.0 Total Funding 177.2 177.2 0.0
Page 214 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Appendix 3 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority LFEPA Revenue Budget Mayor's Approved LFEPA Change Reason for Change Budget Approved Final (if material) Budget
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m Community safety 38.7 37.7 -1.0
Fire fighting and rescue 370.3 357.8 -12.5 Reflects savings agreed at LFEPA Authority meetings in March and June 2011 1 Fire -fighter pensions 17.4 17.4 0.0
Emergency planning 0.9 0.9 0.0
Central services 1.8 1.8 0.0 Savings to be agreed 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net service expenditure 429.1 415.6 -13.5
Capital financing costs 11.8 11.5 -0.3
External interest receipts -0.5 -0.8 -0.3
Specific grants -11.7 -10.8 0.9 Net revenue expenditure 428.7 415.5 -13.2
Transfer to/from reserves -19.3 -6.1 13.2
Budget requirement 409.4 409.4 0.0
Note: 1. The reduction in the Fire fighting and rescue and Community Safety budget reflects the impact of the additional £14m of savings agreed by LFEPA at its March - £6.2m and June - £8m) meetings. This includes a reduction in the central contingency for inflation of just under £9m (of which £6.2m was agreed in March and £2.7m in June) – one of the main contributors to LFEPA’s provisional underspend for 2011-12 of £22.6m due to the zero pay award for all staff groups. In addition a further £4m of non staff, £0.6m of operational staff and £0.8m of FRS staff savings were agreed at the 24 June meeting of the Authority. A full list of the additional £8m savings agreed at the June meeting are set out in Appendices 1 to 3 at the following link: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/FEP1742(1).pdf 2. The effect of these savings – allied to revised assumptions on interest payments and receipts and confirmed specific grant allocations - has been to reduce the planned draw down of reserves in 2011- 12 from £19.3m to £6.1m .
Page 215 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 LFEPA Capital Budget Mayor's Approved LFEPA Approved Change Reason for Change Budget Final Budget (if material)
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m Informatio n Technology Projects 1.8 1.9 0.1
Control and Communication 0.3 0.3 Projects Community Fire Safety 0.1 0.1 0.0 Procurement projects 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Respiratory Protection 0.4 0.1 -0.3 Equipment New Headquarters and disposal 0.0 0.0 0.0 of 8 Albert Embankment
Fire House 0.0 0.0 0.0 Resilience Projects 0.7 0.7 0.0 Refurbishments of Fire Stations 3.7 6.0 2.3 Delay in planning permission for West Norwood fire station refurbishment (carry forward from 2010-11) Extensions to Fire Stations 1.1 1. 1 0.0 New/Replacement of Fire 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stations London Safety Plan – fire station 4.1 4.1 0.0 refurbishments/rebuilds Other Property Projects 1.0 1.0 0.0 Minor Improvements Programme 1.0 1.0 0.0
Sustainability Projects 1.6 1.6 0.0 Others 0. 3 0.4 0.1 Total Projects 15.8 18.2 2.4 Less Overprogramming -0.9 -0.4 0.5 Total Expenditure 14.9 17.8 2.9 Capital Receipts 3.1 3.1 0.0 Borrowing (Supported and 0.0 6.7 6.7 Unsupported)
Revenue contributions 11.4 0.0 -11.4 Funding now pro vided via confirmed CLG Capital grant/borrowing Capital Reserves 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capital Grants 0.4 8.1 7.7 Total Funding 14.9 17.8 2.9
Page 216 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Appendix 4 Transport for London TfL Operating Expenditure (Revenue) Service analysis Mayor's TfL Final Change Reason for Change Approved Budget (if material) Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 £m £m £m Income Traffic income -3,447 -3,468 -21 Primarily bus network income which has been revised in line with the latest available economic assumptions. Congestion Charge, LEZ, -305 -284 21 Congestion Charging & Enforcement income has been enforcement income reduced by £17m and £4m respectively in line with current economic trends Other income -274 -310 -36 Increased income due to: London Underground advertising, East London Transit phase 1b and Barclays Cycle Hire sponsorship re-categorised from 3rd Party Income. Plus an additional change in Surface Transport due to a £16m re-categorisation between income and expenditure. Sub total Income -4,025 -4,062 -36 Operating costs London Underground 2,029 1,895 -135 Following the acquisition of Tube Lines the level of risk and pre-acquisition liabilities were reviewed and subsequently reduced. This accounts for the majority of the variance. In addition savings have been made through organisational efficiencies. Tube Lines 401 428 27 Mainly due to the delayed start of the Jubilee fleet overhaul and re-phasing of the station services programme. Other projects were also rephrased with some deferrals from 10/11 of station asset works; and some acceleration from future years, including of sub- surface train purchase costs. Surface Transport 2,623 2,645 22 East London Transit phase 1b and Cycle Hire receipts, totalling £16m, were re-categorised from 3rd Party to income. A further £16m was also reclassified between income and operating expenditure, offset by a reduction to bus network contract costs due to lower labour indices assumptions (£9m). London Rail 343 338 -5 Corporate Directorates 334 388 54 This is mainly due to Finance. IT/IM costs have increased to cover a technology refresh and other Finance Management costs have increased by £18m as a result of the commercial strategy programme transfer to Group Items. Sub total Operating 5,730 5,693 -37 costs
Page 217 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Service analysis Mayor's TfL Final Change Reason for Change Approved Budget (if material) Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 £m £m £m Capital expenditure London Underground 1,176 1,242 66 Resulting from the re-phasing of projects, including some deferral from 10/11 of stations asset works; and some acceleration from future years, including of sub- surface train purchase costs Tube Lines 300 385 85 Resulting from the re-phasing of projects. Surface Transport 221 246 25 Largely due to the acceleration of the new investment in the SCOOT programme from 2013/14 and the Woolwich Ferry Life Extension programme. In addition various projects were re-phased from 2010/11. London Rail 90 191 101 Mainly due to re-phasing of £51m of capital expenditure, the addition of the Cable Car project and other smaller changes within the DLR project portfolio. Corporate Directorates 49 74 25 Largely due to re-phasing of the Future Ticketing Project, ITSO and IM projects. Sub total capital 1,836 2,138 302 expenditure Other Property sales -67 -44 23 Mainly rescheduling of sales into future years. Third-party contributions -74 -74 0 Over-programming -71 -115 -44 Overprogramming has been increased in light of the increased capital expenditure. Interest income -4 -5 -1 Debt servicing 314 304 -10 Group items 154 71 -83 The appropriate level of contingency was reduced in the light of recent experience. In addition the commercial strategy programme has been transferred to Group Items from the Corporate directorates. Net services 3,793 3,906 114 expenditure Movements in working 199 255 56 Working capital requirement reassessed in response to capital expenditure movements Specific grants -3,274 -3,293 -19 Crossrail cash 1,205 1,089 -116 Reflects a difference in presentation between the commitment Mayor's budget which is includes Crossrail funding from TfL, however the TfL Budget reflects the actual expenditure made by the Crossrail project. Crossrail funding sources -1,390 -1,390 0 Utilisation of cash -102 -198 -96 Primarily resulting from the increased net expenditure reserves as detailed above Prudential borrowing -425 -363 62 Budget requirement 6 6 0
Page 218 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 TfL Capital Spending Plan Mayor's TfL Final Change Reason for Change Approved Budget (if material) Budget 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 £m £m £m London Underground 1,176 1,242 66 Results from the re -phasing of projects, including some deferral from 10/11 of stations asset works; and some acceleration from future years, including of sub-surface train purchase costs
Tube Lines 300 385 85 Results from the re -phasing of projects.
Surface Transport 221 246 25 Largely due to the acceleration of the new investment in the SCOOT 1 programme from 2013/14 and the Woolwich Ferry Life Extension programme. In addition various projects were re-phased from 2010/11.
London Rail 90 191 101 Mainly due to re -phasing of £51m, the addition of the Cable Car project and changes to DLR projects. Corporate 49 74 25 Largely due to re -phasing of the Future Ticketing Project, ITSO 2 and IM projects.
Gross capital 1,836 2,138 302 expenditure
Less over -programming 71 115 44
Total capital expenditure 1,765 2,023 258 in Business Plan
Crossrail 1,057 1,089 32
Total capital 2,822 3,112 290 expenditure including Crossrail Funding: Capital receipts 141 118 -23 Capital grant 941 941 0 Borrowing 425 363 -62 Crossrail funding sources 1,057 1,089 32 Revenue contribution 258 595 337 (including reserves)
Total funding 2,822 3,106 284
1 SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique) is a traffic management signal control system
2 ITSO is a Government-backed, non-profit organisation which defines and develops the UK-wide technical specification for smart ticketing.
Page 219 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Appendix 5 London Development Agency Aggregate Revenue and Capital Budget
LDA budget Mayor's LDA Board Change Reason for Approved Approved Final Change Budget Budget (if material) 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m Regeneration 17.0 26.8 9.8 £10m allocated for the Outer London Regeneration Fund Climate Change 15.2 7.9 -7.3 London Waste Recycling Board Funding excluded (financed via GLA General Grant) JESSICA (Climate change) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sustained employment 19.6 20.0 0.4 Reprofiled to skills, youth and volunteering
Skills and employment 0.0 0.0 0.0
Youth and volunteering 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sport 0.0 0.0 0.0 Business support 12.1 6.2 -5.9 Business link reduction £5.2m International promotion 7.4 1.3 -6.1 £6.1m reduction to Call 101 project Other 0.0 5.0 5. 0 Slippage b/f from 2010/12 Olympic legacy 14.3 14.6 0.3 Total thematic expenditure 85.6 81.8 -3.8 Olympic land and debt 320.0 320.0 0.0
OPLC grant 5.1 5.1 0.0 European Programmes 0.0 0.0 0.0
Administration 18.0 18.0 0.0 Transition TBC 3.0 n/a Contingency for potential carry 0.0 19.1 n/a forward to 2012-13 TOTAL BUDGET 428.7 447.0 18.3
Page 220 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 Funding of Aggregate LDA Budget LDA budget Mayor's LDA Board Change Re ason for Approved Approved Final Change Budget Budget (if material) £m £m £m LDA Core Grant n/a 155.0 n/a
GLA Contribution (from n/a 14.0 n/a borrowing) Surplus grant from 2010 -11 n/a 7.0 n/a c/f Capital receipts n/a 168.0 n/a Transition fund n/a 59.0 n/a Borrowing n/a 44.0 n/a To tal funding N/A 447.0 N/A
Page 221 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 LDA Revenue Budget LDA budget Mayor's LDA Board Change Reason for Approved Approved Final Change Budget (Feb 10) Budget (if material)
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m Regeneration 6.2 21.8 15.6 Clim ate Change 3.7 0.9 -2.8 JESSICA (Climate 0.0 0.0 0.0 change) Sustained employment 19.6 20.0 0.4
Skills and employment 0.0 0.0 0.0
Youth and volunteering 0.0 0.0 0.0
Business support 12.1 6.2 -5.9 International promotion 7.4 1.3 -6.1
Other 0. 0 0.0 0.0 Olympic legacy and 11.3 11.6 0.3 Sport Total thematic 60.3 61.8 1.5 expenditure Olympic land and debt 28.0 28.0 0.0
OPLC grant 5.1 5.1 0.0 European Programmes 0.0 0.0 0.0
Administration 18.0 18.0 0.0 Transition 0.0 3.0 3.0 Cont ingency for 0.0 13.1 3.0 potential carry forward to 2012-13
TOTAL 111.4 129.0 17.6 EXPENDITURE Funding Core LDA Grant n/a 63 .0 n/a
Surplus grant from n/a 7.0 n/a 2010-11 c/f Transition fund n/a 59.0 n/a TOTAL FUNDING N/A 129.0 n/a
Page 222 Comparison of Mayor’s Approved and Final Functional Body Budgets for 2011-12 LDA Capital Spending Plan LDA budget Mayor's LDA Board Change Reason for Approved Approved Final Change Budget (Feb 10) Budget (if material)
2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 2011 -12 £m £m £m Regeneration 10.8 9.0 -1.8 Outer London Rege neration fund 0 0.0 0.0
Climate Change 11.5 7.1 -4.4 JESSICA (Climate change) 0 0.0 0.0
Sustained employment 0 0.0 0.0
Business support 0 0.0 International promotion 0 0.0 0.0
Olympic legacy and Sport 3 3.0 0
Total thematic expenditure 25.3 19.1 -6.2
Olympic land and debt 292 292.0 0 repayment Contingency for potential carry 0 7.0 7.0 forward to 2012-13
TOTAL EXPENDTURE 317.3 318.1 -6.2 Funding LDA Grant n/a 92.1 n/a Transition fund n/a 0.0 n/a GLA Contribution (via bo rrowing) n/a 14.0 n/a Funding c/f from 2010 -11 n/a 0.0 n/a
LDA Borrowing n/a 44.0 n/a Capital receipts n/a 168.0 n/a TOTAL FUNDING N/A 318.1 N/A
Page 223 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 224 Agenda Item 7
Subject: Mayor’s Decision Lists : 8 April to 29 June 2011 Report to: Budget Monitoring Sub -Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 19 July 2011 This report will be considered in public 1. Summary . 1.1 This report sets out th e Mayor’s decisions list for the period 8 April to 29 June 2011. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Sub-Committee discusses any issues arising in respect of the Mayor’s Decision Lists for the period 8 April to 29 June 2011 (previously made available as background papers to the relevant Mayor's Report to the Assembly), and decides whether it wishes to refer any issues to the Budget and Performance Committee for detailed consideration. 3. Background 3.1 The Mayor’s Decision List records the decisions taken by the Mayor (through the Authority’s formal Mayoral Approval process) and Directors of the Authority (through the Authority’s formal Director’s Approval process). These Lists, which relate to a specified period, are made available as background papers to each Mayor’s Report to the London Assembly. 4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 The Sub-Committee is invited to discuss any issues arising in respect of the Mayor’s Decision Lists for the period 8 April to 29 June 2011 (attached as Appendix 1 and previously made available as background papers to the relevant Mayor's Report to the Assembly) and to decide whether it wishes to refer any issues to the Budget and Performance Committee for further consideration. 4.2 Members may note that the reports behind Mayoral decisions are available on the GLA website within a short time after the decision is made. The web page address is: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions .
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 225
5. Legal Implications 5.1 The Sub-Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report. 6. Financial Implications 6.1 There are no financial implication arising directly from this report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Mayor’s Decision List (8 April to 29 June 2011) Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Matt Bailey Telephone: 020 7983 4014 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 226 Appendix 1 Mayor’ s Report to the Assembly Background Document – List of decisions between 8 April 2011 and 4 May 2011 The Part 1 of Mayoral Decisions (from 6 April 2009) and Director Decisions (from 1 November 2010), and the non-confidential facts and advice supporting those decisions, are published on the GLA website (http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions ) within one working day of approval, unless deferred. * = previously deferred publication. Ref Decision Date Approved by/ Financial Implications Mayoral Advisor MD812 Agreed: 26/04/11 Boris Johnson/ It is proposed to leave unchange d Guto Harri the supplement payable in 1. That the Mayor approve (noting that it is a joint decision with recognition of the additional duties Page 227 Assembly) the appointment of Ed Williams, Head of Committee and as monitoring officer. There are no Member Services as the authority’s Monitoring Officer, and approve other financial implications arising the terms and conditions of his appointment to this role. from this report MD804 Agreed: 26/04/11 Boris Johnson/ There are no direct financial Nicholas Griffin implications for the GLA in this 1. To approve the Museum of London to enter into the lease of approval. Any expenditure incurred quayside at Museum of London Docklands for a term of 10 years as part of the lease will be met by from 1 April 2011. the Museum of London and monitored via their budget Part 2 of this report is confidential under the FOI Act. monitoring and their quarterly Finance and General Purposes Committee and Board of Governors meetings. MD802 Agreed: 26/04/11 Boris Johnson/ There is no fee for a deputy RCO Guto Harri provided for in the Cabinet Office’s 1. To note the proposed appointment of the Greater London funding formula or the Electoral Returning Officer as deputy to the Regional Counting Officer for Commission’s proposed fees and London for the referendum on the Parliamentary voting system on 5 charges determination. May 2011. London Elects need to ensure that prior to committing to expenditure in respect of the 2011 Referendum a formal approved claims process is established between the Greater London Authority and the Regional Counting Officer. This will provide assurance that all 2011 Referendum marginal costs are fully recoverable and any contributions to accommodation and staffing are maximised. MD792 Agreed: 14/04/11 Boris Johnson/ The estimated cost of the expected Guto Harri contract and associated costs is 1. The competitive procurement of a contract to deliver the concept expected to be £80k. of “London House”, including the raising of sponsorship to cover the Page 228 cost of the Mayor’s planned hospitality for dignitaries during the Olympic Games 2012. 2. The subsequent award of contract to the bidder submitting the most economically advantageous proposal (work to be completed by September 2011). 3. The delegation to the Director of External Affairs of authority to approve entry into sponsorship arrangements relating to and such other contracts required for the project (and execution of the same) without the need for a DD. MD730 Agreed: 14/04/11 Boris Johnson/ It should be noted that contract Anthony Browne negotiations will not commence 1. The package of seven projects approved to proceed to contract unless the LDA receive negotiations to secure the European Regional Development Fund confirmation of the 50% match (ERDF) listed in Annex 1 of this decision. Total ERDF requested is funding requirement from each £7.7 million. project.
At this stage, the LDA is the lead authority on this programme and there are no immediate direct financial implications to the GLA. MD718* Agreed: 29/11/10 Boris Johnson/ The cost of the feasibility study is Munira Mirza expected to be no more than £50k. 1. To allocate funding of £50k from the Events for London 2010- 2011 programme budget, for the procurement of a feasibility study This cost can be met from the to be undertaken by the Thames Festival Trust to scope the River 2010/11 Events for London Pageant event in June 2012 as the centrepiece in London for the Programme budget. MD589 Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations. approved an allocation of £195k to major Civic Events and it is from 2. To enter into a contract with the Thames Festival Trust, to the this allocation that funding will value of £50k to produce a feasibility study for Queen’s Diamond come. Page 229 Jubilee river event. 3. To seek an exemption from the requirement of section 3.8 of the GLA’s Contracts and Funding Code to seek three or more written quotations on grounds that there is a very limited number of suppliers of such services, given the Thames Festival Trust’s unique position regarding creation of major river based public spectator and community participation events, and familiarity with staging major public events on and alongside the River Thames. MD702* Agreed: 05/11/10 Boris Johnson/ A budget of £125k for transport Dan Ritterband network consultancy has been 1. To award a contract to Jack Morton Worldwide for £106,773.60 approved by the LOOK & FEEL to scope in LOOK & FEEL programme across London’s transport Project Review Group which network in accordance with the brief attached to this decision. comprises the key stakeholders in the LOOK & FEEL programme. 2. To exempt the award of the contract to Jack Morton Worldwide from the requirements of the GLA’s Contract and Funding Code. The headroom will provide an allowance for additional elements 3. To establish a budget of £125k for the LOOK & FEEL transport to be funded that may fall outside
network consultancy to be funded from the council tax precept for of the scope of this brief. The the Games. budget will be funded from the Council tax precept for the Games all of which is currently paid over to the ODA. Therefore an equivalent reduction will be made to the amount paid to ODA so that there is no additional cost to the GLA. The ODA will be funded the difference from the Government Olympic Executive so that it is cost neutral. MD674 Agreed: 26/04/11 Boris Johnson/ There are no direct financial Anthony Browne implications for the GLA. A 1. To consent to giving a revenue grant of £350k and a capital grant proportion of funding that the GLA of £200k to TfL in respect of 2010-11 for costs relating to the 101 has received from the LDA for this Page 230 single telephone number for London project. project will be transferred to TfL where an estimated £550k has been incurred during 2010-11. MD669 Agreed: 26/04/11 Boris Johnson/ Ov er the 3 - year duration of the Kit Malthouse programmes (from 2011-12 to 1. Funding totalling £2,600,000 divided equally between two new 2013-14), the total funding projects (‘structured uniformed activities’ and ‘Mayor’s Mentoring allocated is £2.745m. Programme’) over three financial years (2011-12 to 2013-14). These programmes form part of the 2. GLA Expenditure of up to £145,000 over three financial years LDA funding settlement for 2011- (2011-12 to 2013-14) on the evaluation of the programmes. 12 onwards. The proposed expenditure scheduled for 2011-12 (£805,000) will be funded from LDA income that will be sought via a Mayoral Direction. The proposed expenditure for 2012-13 and 2013- 14 is part of the LDA funding settlement for future years and will form part of the GLA General Grant
and built into the GLA’s Base Budget for 2012-13 and 2013-14, subject to the annual budget process for each subsequent financial year. DD465 Agreed: 28/04/11 Dan Ritterband In the event that the sponsorship and income targets are not met, the 1. For the GLA, in association with Sunrise Radio, organise Vaisakhi event will be reduced accordingly, in the Square, to take place on Trafalgar Square on Sunday 15 May and in the event of insufficient 2011, at a total cost of up to £60k. funds being raised to deliver the event to a satisfactory standard, 2. A core budget contribution of £25k for this event towards the the event may not take place. cost of production, management and marketing for the event. This However, if the sponsorship and contribution is to be met from the 2011/12 GLA programme budget income targets are exceeded the and the allocation made for Events for London. event may be enhanced. Page 231 3. The seeking of sponsorship and other income, of up to £35k to assist in meeting the costs of the event and delegates power to the Director of Marketing to approve the entry into and signature of sponsorship agreements without need for an MD or DD (including without limitation, the sponsorship already agreed with Lycamobile and any other sponsorship obtained). 4. The partnership with Sunrise Radio who have been represented as a media partner for Vaisakhi for the last eight years and have the largest outreach to the Sikh Community and Asian community of all ages via their media channels. Sunrise Radio will provide free programming, cultural and contemporary stage content, artists, DJ’s and advertising for free. Without their contribution the event would be at risk. 5. The commencement of a competitive procurement exercise, using the Events for London ‘Framework’ of companies to source event production management services.
DD463 Agreed: 14/0 4/11 Neale Coleman The procurement team have given approval for the single source 1. Approval is sought to enter into contracts with Jack Morton’s for derogation for this work, given Jack the sum of £47,891.04 to produce detailed pod design visuals for Morton’s previous work on the the London Ambassador pods. Themed Experience areas. 2. To approve an exemption from the requirements of the GLA’s There is an established budget for Contracts and Funding Code, as Jack Morton’s is to be appointed the London Ambassadors without first obtaining three or more written quotes. programme and this piece of work is fully funded from this budget which is now part of the public sector funding package for the Games. DD462 Agreed: 12/04/11 Martin Clarke The proposed estimated costs of Page 232 £67,147 for these works are to be 1. The commissioning of LED lighting installation services from funded from the City Hall Norland Managed Services Limited with a value of £67,147 under Infrastructure Capital Programme the GLA’s contract for building infrastructure management services. budget. All appropriate budget adjustments will be made. DD461 Agreed: 13/04/11 Neale Coleman The £25k grant funding to the City of London will be met from the 1. To provide up to £25k grant funding to the City of London to LOOK & FEEL budget which is fund the cost of engaging consultants to progress the planning and being funded from the council tax consents process for the Tower Bridge Spectaculars project (lighting precept for the Games so that there and iconic spectaculars). is a net nil cost to the GLA. This will all be funded in 2011/12. There is provision for this sum within the Lighting the Bridges budget which is managed within the £32 million of the LOOK & FEEL programme agreed with Government.
DD460 Agreed: 13/04/11 Neale Coleman Agreement has been reached with Government that funding for the 1. Entry into an agreement with Witherford, Watson and Mann to project will come from the GLA's take forward the design and consents work of improvements to the Games precept as part of the Public Southbank, at an estimated total cost of £96,483. Sector Funding Package for the Games. Approval was given in 2. An exemption from the requirement in the GLA’s Contracts and MD788 for the £4 million project Funding Code to seek three or more written quotes for procurements budget to be funded from the between £5k and £125k in value. Witherford, Watson and Mann was Games precept and this selected after a competitive procedure involving two bidders. expenditure will be funded within that allocation. DD459 Agreed: 18/04/11 Jeff Jacobs There are no direct costs to the GLA associated with this agreement 1. For the GLA to become a member of the Public Sector Mapping as the costs of the data will be paid Page 233 Agreement from 1 April 2011 by accepting the terms of the PSMA for centrally by the CLG. However, member licence. it should be noted the GLA General Grant has been reduced by some £800k from 2011-12 to take into account that the data will be purchased centrally by the CLG as opposed to the previous agreement, where the GLA Group would incur the costs directly. DD458 Agreed: 13/04/11 Dan Ritterband There are no direct financial implications for the GLA arising 1. To award a contract to Mediaedge CIA for its provision to the GLA from this decision as costs are of Media Planning and Buying services. dependent upon subsequent use of the service. There is an estimated spend by the GLA of £300k across all marketing programmes for the next financial year.
DD457 Agreed: 08/04/11 Dan Ritterband The cost for the initial six months would be £12,400. The expected 1. To award the contract for email and mobile services to E-circle full year cost, if proceeded with, from May 2011, for a period of six months with an option to extend would be £24,800. for a further six months. DD456 Agreed: 13/04/11 Dan Ritterband The estimated gross cost of thi s project in 2011/12 is £150k and 1. A core budget of up to £100k from the 2011/12 GLA programme the net cost to the GLA will be budget and the allocation made for Events for London for the £100k. The balance of £50k is Liberty (Disability) Festival, to take place on the South Bank (subject projected income from the Arts to feasibility study) on Saturday 3 September 2011. Council (£30k) and sponsorship income currently being sought 2. To award a contract to Greenwich and Docklands Festivals (GDF) (£20k). to deliver the Liberty Festival 2011 (Year Four) in accordance with Page 234 the terms of the event organisation contract awarded to GDF in In the event that income funds are February 2008 under MAF 3206. not secured, the Events for London Team have confirmed that the 3. The making of an application to the Arts Council for ‘Grants for project will be reduced accordingly. the Arts’ funding and if successful the entry into a funding agreement with the Arts Council and use of the funding for the enhanced programming of the Liberty Festival 2011. 4. To seek sponsorship for Liberty 2011; (£20,000 target). 5. To approve entry into (and agree and execute) related sponsorship agreements. DD453 Agreed: 11/04/11 Martin Cla rke The estimated cost for an extension to the current contract for a 12 1. To approve the exercise by the GLA of the contractual option to month period, incorporating the extend the Willis News Contract (“Contract”) for a further year, from proposed changes is estimated to 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012 by way of a letter to Willis be £14,500. News Limited which the Director of Resources will sign.
DD449 Agreed: 12/04/11 Guto Harri The cost of the Media Monitoring service’s Newspaper Licensing 1. Entry into a license agreement with the Newspaper Licensing Agency fee to cover the period 25 Agency for one year and payment of the annual fees in respect of May 2011 to 24 May 2012 is the same. £42,865. 2. A related exemption from the requirement to seek three or more The GLA and TfL jointly fund the competitive quotations /make a call off from an accessible media monitoring services. The framework for the provision of the licence to reflect the Newspaper GLA’s share of these costs is Licensing Agency’s position as sole licensor of copyright materials £5,558.07, which will be met from circulated by way of the press cutting service. the Media Monitoring budget for 2011/12 and 2012/13. The GLA will also manage the service and bill TfL for the required contribution. DD448 Agreed: 21/04/11 Jeff Jacobs The estimated cost of this contract Page 235 is expected to be no more than 1. The purchase of a license (from Resolex Limited) for use of the £25,200 in 2011-12, which includes “Listening to London” platform for the 2011-12 financial year. the monthly licensing fees for social media monitoring and WriteOn 2. A related exemption from the requirement of the GLA’s Contracts analysis in this financial year and Funding Code to undertake a competitive procurement (£2,100 per month). Two thirds of exercise/call off from an accessible framework in this regard. this cost will be funded from the 2011-12 Public Consultation Programme budget. One third of the costs will be funded from the Public Liaison Unit budget. Monthly licensing fees that may fall in beyond the 2011-12 financial year will depend on budget allocations for 2012-13 and will be subject to further approval. DD444 Agreed: 15/04/11 Neale Coleman There is provision for this sum within the Rings/Agitos element of 1. To enter into an agreement with Innovision consultancy to the Look and Feel budget which is
conduct the feasibility, des ign and project management of the Rings being funded from the Games and Agitos for London 2012 at a cost of up to £400,925 to be precept so is at nil cost to the GLA funded from the Rings/Agitos element of the Look and Feel budget. itself. This is managed within the £32 million of the LOOK & FEEL programme agreed with Government. MD696 gave approval for the budget including a delegation to the Mayor’s Olympic Adviser and Executive Director of Resources to approve changes to the proposed budget and proposals for individual elements of the programme. DD425 Agreed: 13/04/11 Neale Coleman In the worst case scenario - financial liability to the GLA is 1. To approve retrospectively the GLA’s entering-into of the All approximately £125k. £100k of this Page 236 Party Collaboration Agreement with the City of London, General is a liability cap on the GLA as set Electric, EDF Energy and Citelum in relation to the Tower Bridge out in the All Party Collaboration Lighting Project. Agreement. This would only materialise should the GLA not perform its obligations under the agreement. Should the £100,000 become payable in the event of a breach of the agreement the cost would be funded from the Look & Feel budget contingency, provision for which was set out in MD696. It would still ensure that there was no net direct cost to the GLA since the Look & Feel budget is funded from the Games council tax precept.
DD420 * Agreed: 15/02/11 Jeff Jacobs The estimate d cost of this survey is £40k and will be funded by income 1. The director’s approval of the commencement of a procurement already received from the exercise for telephone survey services designed to explore public Department of Health. The income attitudes towards alcohol (under Lot 2 of the GLA’s Framework and the associated expenditure will Agreement for Consultation and Market Research Services) and be accounted for within the 2010- subsequent award to the framework provider submitting the most 11 Health Programme budget. The economically advantageous bid. Health Team have confirmed that the project will be completed by the 31 March 2011. DD415* Agreed: 23/02/11 Lyn Garner The £40k cost has been estimated on the basis of comparable research 1. To approve an amount of up to £40k from the London Plan in 2007. Budget to procure specialist technical services to undertake the research ‘Industrial Land Demand and Release Benchmarks in An estimated £20k will be incurred Page 237 London’ to inform early alterations to the London Plan and an in 2010/11 and £20k in 2011/12 update of Industrial Capacity Supplementary Planning Guidance. payable upon completion of the project in June 2011. 2. To approve the commencement of procurement for this research. 3. To award the subsequent contract on the GLA ‘s standard terms and conditions to the tenderer submitting the most economically advantageous tender quote, having regard to the criteria set out in the Section 6 of the brief (see Annex 1 of this decision). 4. To approve all necessary budget adjustments. DD401 Agreed: 18/04/11 Jeff Jacobs The price of the annual subscription from the 1 January 2011 to 31 1. To award a contract to Elsevier for the provision of access to its December 2011 is estimated at Science Direct database for a period of 1 year which will be in £5,822 per annum and if extended retrospect for January 2011-December 2011 with the option to for a further 2 years until the extend for a period of up to 2 years (with a total maximum of value December 2013, total costs will of up to £19k. total approximately £17,466.
2. To a n exemption from the requirement under section 3.8 of the GLA’s Contracts and Funding Code to procure contracts with values of between £5k and £125k by seeking three or more competitive quotations or by calling off from an accessible framework. ODD24 Agreed: 08/04/11 Neale Coleman/ This will be funded using income Martin Clarke received from the LDA in 2010-11 1. To the extension of project management support for the delivery in relation to the London Media of the London Events Co-ordination Calendar project from the Centre (MD582 Procurement and Government Olympics Executive at an estimated cost of £37k to be Funding of the London Media funded from income received from the LDA. Centre) so will be a net nil cost to the GLA. Costs and income will be 2. That future expenditure committed for the London Media Centre posted to the London Media Centre venue agreed in ODD16 be funded from the balance of carried cost centre within the 2010-11 City forward income received from the LDA in 2010-11 and the Olympic Operations budget in the London precept as part of the public sector funding package as necessary. 2012 Directorate. Page 238
Mayor’s Report to the Assembly Background Document – List of decisions between 5 May 2011 and 1 June 2011 The Part 1 of Mayoral Decisions (from 6 April 2009) and Director Decisions (from 1 November 2010), and the non-confidential facts and advice supporting those decisions, are published on the GLA website ( http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions ) within one working day of approval, unless deferred. * = previously deferred publication. Ref Decision Date Approved by/ Financial Implications Mayoral Advisor MD832 Agreed: 25/05/11 Boris Johnson/ There are no costs to the GLA Peter Rogers arising out of the current 1. To approve the applications for membership of London & Partners appointments as all salary costs, Page 239 (L&P) from the British Hospitality Association and the London allowances and expenses are met Chamber of Commerce and Industry. by London & Partners. 2. To approve the appointment by the L&P board of Gordon Innes as The recruitment of the chair and CEO of L&P. one other non-executive director will incur some costs in the form of 3. To approve the appointment by the L&P board of Andrew Cooke recruitment advertising etc., which as the executive with responsibility for the financial affairs of L&P. will be funded from the GLA’s HR Recruitment Budget. The process 4. To delegate to the Head of Paid Service authority to commence will be carried out in line with the selection process for the appointment of the chair and one other Protocol on Mayoral appointments. non-executive director to the L&P board at a date he considers appropriate. 5. Approve the extension of Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas as interim chair to 31 January 2012. MD831 Agreed: 27/05 /11 Boris Johnson/ The cost of this appointment is met Peter Rogers entirely by the LDA. Consequently 1. To consent to the appointment of Ms Lurene Joseph as the LDA's there are no direct financial CEO as required by the RDA Act. implications for the GLA. MD820 Agreed: 10/05/11 Boris Johnson/ The development costs of this Nicholas Griffin project will be met by the Sponsor 1. To enter into a Memorandum of Agreement to support the and there is no call upon the GLA’s Thames River Park Project. own resources. The Sponsor will be solely responsible for funding the Planning Preparation Costs, and subject to planning and other consents, will also provide or procure the provision of financing in connection with the subsequent development of the project.
MD815 Agreed: 09/05/11 Bor is Johnson/ The Transfer of the DWfL from the Richard Barnes LDA to GLA is scheduled to take 1. To direct the LDA to transfer to the GLA the 2010-13 Diversity place in Quarter 1 of 2011-12. The Works for London programme as approved by the LDA Investment maximum programme funding for Page 240 Committee on 28 January 2010, and £429k budgeted for the DWfL in 2011-12 is £429k, revenue programme for 2011-12 (see Direction set out in appendix 1). funding, which has been identified within the LDA budget. The Mayor 2. To delegate the power to approve all further recommendations is directing the LDA to transfer this and spend relating to DWfL and its allocated budget to the amount to the GLA in 2011-12, Executive Director of Communities and Intelligence. who will then administer the funding accordingly. In addition to the budget transfer, one staff member and a Senior Project Manager, will also transfer with estimated cost of the post equating to £65,049, including on- costs. The budget provision for the post will also transfer in 2011-12. The creation of the post on the GLA establishment has been subject to a BMAC report presented to Assembly on 30 March 2011 and approved via HOPS80.
MD814 Agreed: 09/05/11 Boris Johnson/ The salaries (and associated on - Guto Harri costs) arising from the changes to 1. To appoint Edward Lister to the existing and vacant s 67(1)(b) the Mayor’s Office can be post of Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor, Planning with the contained within the existing appointment to take effect within the next two months. The budget provision available in responsibilities of the role are set out in Appendix 1. 2011/12. 2. To re-establish the existing s 67(1)(b) post – Mayoral Advisor, Transport – as a s 67(1) (b) post of Deputy Mayor for Transport with the roles and responsibilities set out in Appendix 2; to appoint Isabel Dedring, to this post, as a secondee from Transport for London to the GLA, with effect from 3 May 2011. 3. To re-establish the existing s 67(1)(b) post - Mayoral Director, Environment with the roles and responsibilities as set out in Appendix 3; to appoint Kulveer Ranger to the post with effect from Page 241 3 May 2011 and with a salary of £110k for the role and all other terms and conditions remaining unchanged. 4. To note that Anthony Browne has resigned from his role as Mayoral Advisor, Economic Development and to agree that Anthony Browne should not be required to work the period of his notice that remains upon Sir Peter Rogers commencing employment with the GLA (see 5 below), and that Anthony Browne should be paid in lieu of any oustanding notice. 5. That upon the cessation of Anthony Browne’s employment, to re- establish the s 67(1) (b) post - Mayoral Advisor, Economic Development – as a s 67(1) (b) post of Mayoral Advisor Regeneration, Growth and Enterprise with the roles and responsibilities set out in Appendix 4; and to appoint Sir Peter Rogers to that post with the appointment to take effect within the next two months.
MD810 Agreed: 13/05/11 Boris Johnson/ An appropriate tender exercise will Neale Coleman be undertaken for the event 1. To direct the LDA to transfer £330k to the GLA for use by the organiser contract. From experience GLA for Olympic related events. through delivering events on Trafalgar Square, the budget is 2. To approve the use by the GLA of up to £330k for the delivery, deemed an appropriate level to marketing and promotion of the One Year to Go (1YTG) event, and deliver a high–profile, live Sky Orchestra. broadcasted, event. 3. To approve the commencement of a competitive procurement The funding of £330k will come exercise, using the existing Events for London Framework, to source from LDA funding that was treated an experienced event organiser to deliver the 1YTG event; and as income in advance in 2010/11 delegate power to the Director of External Affairs to approve any and is to be formally transferred award of contract for event management services based on the best into 2011/12. value bids received through the tender process, without the need for a further Mayoral Decision. The Sky Orchestra element of the Page 242 proposal is £60k and will come from 4. To approve the seeking of sponsorship for the 1YTG event in within this budget allocation. order to reduce the net costs of the event; and to approve the Director of Marketing’s having authority to enter into related sponsorship agreements without the need for any further Mayoral/Director’s Decision. 5. To approve entry into a Funding Agreement with the London International Festival of Theatre (Registered Charity No. 286169), to support the delivery of the Sky Orchestra. MD808 Agreed: 09/05/11 Boris Johnson/ The London Ambassadors Neale Coleman programme requires £7 million over 1. To direct the LDA: its lifetime (based on some 8,000 • pursuant to section 121 of the GLA Act 1999 to transfer £3.5m volunteers, six days/5 hour shifts at (£2.5m of LDA revenue funds for the London Ambassadors 40 locations in addition to a programme, £350k of LDA revenue funds for the Welcome to programme team of 5 staff. London programme, and £650k of LDA revenue funds for the Accessibility programme), less any expenditure incurred by LDA £1.08 million of this £7million has in delivery in Financial Year 2011/12 up to date of transfer; been approved to spend (and was • subject to each individual’s consent and to compliance with all spent) by the LDA up to the end of legal requirements, to assist with the transfer of the employment financial year 2010/11. of the five staff supporting the London Ambassadors function Agreement has been reached with and the one staff member supporting the Welcome to London Central Government that function to the GLA; £3.5million of funding for the in order to resource the development, administration and delivery of programme will be made available the programmes from the date of transfer to 30 September 2012. from the Public Sector Funding Package using the Games precept. 2. To approve the delegation to the Director of London 2012 This was on the basis that a further Coordination, the authority to exercise any function of the London £2 million would be made available Ambassadors, Welcome to London and Accessibility programmes. from sponsorship and that if there This delegation is subject to the following conditions: was a shortfall in this amount the • all decisions that would, in the course of normal GLA operations project would be de-scoped as have been made by a Mayoral Decision form, and are not necessary. The funding from the significant in policy terms, novel or contentious, may instead be LDA includes £2 million to ensure made by a Director’s Decision form (DD) signed by the Director that the full programme could be of London 2012 Coordination; protected in the event that there is • any decision which concerns issues of significance in policy any shortfall in sponsorship. Page 243 terms, or which is novel or contentious, must be referred to the Mayor for a decision via a Mayoral Decision form. The Welcome to London programme requires £350k and 3. To approve £3.5million of the London Ambassadors project grant funding is therefore being budget to be funded from the Public Sector Funding Package for transferred from the LDA to meet the Games using the GLA Games precept. these costs. In addition to this amount, London and Partners will 4. To authorise the Executive Director Resources to make all also support the programme appropriate budget adjustments for the London Ambassadors, financially by various means, Welcome to London and Accessibility Programmes. including funding the staff post required to project manage the 5. To approve the transfer of staff from the LDA to the GLA. programme. The Accessibility programme requires £650k to deliver the business guidelines, training and accessibility audits between now and the 2012 Games and grant funding is therefore being transferred from the LDA to meet
these costs. MD806 Agreed: 13/05/11 Boris Johnson/ There are no direct financial Guto Harri implications for the GLA resulting 1. To direct Transport for London under section 155(1)(c) of the from this decision. Greater London Authority Act 1999 (“the GLA Act”) to assess issues associated with the Government’s aviation policy review for aviation to, from or within Greater London including but not limited to aviation capacity issues, impacts of proposals and engaging with Government in relation to aviation policies as appropriate and respond to the DfT’s consultations and any matter ancillary to doing so. The Direction is time limited to 31 May 2012 and will be reviewed at this date. 2. To authorise Transport for London under section 38(1) of the GLA Act to exercise the Mayor’s powers under sections 30 and 34 of the GLA Act to do all things necessary and expedient to undertake the works required in the Mayor’s direction in accordance with the terms Page 244 of the delegation annexed to this report. DD485 Agreed: 31/05/11 Martin Clarke The amounts listed at paragraph 1.3 of this form will be transferred 1. £2.454m revenue budget provision be carried forward from to reserves as part of the closing of 2010/11 to 2011/12, based upon the list of 31 proposals shown in the 2010/11 accounts. Budget the body of this document. provision across the relevant Directorates/Units will then be 2. £0.885m capital budget provision be carried forward due to made available via draw downs slippage, from 2010/11 to 2011/12. from reserves during 2011/12. DD484 Agreed: 24/05/11 Neale Coleman The estimated cost of this project is £20k. MD808 approved the 1. Approval to enter into the procurement process for a training and transfer of grant funding from guidelines content development supplier. LDA for the Accessibility programme and this project will be 2. Approve the award of the contract to the most economically funded from the budget advantageous tender following a procurement process in accordance established from this transfer. with the GLA’s Contracts and Funding Code and subject to the production of an evaluation report. DD483 Agreed: 25/05/11 Jeff Jacobs It should be noted that £75,800 cost is the base contract and should 1. To continue the contract with ICM research for the delivery of a there be requirements from other programme of telephone surveys for 2011/12. GLA policy teams to enhance any of the telephone surveys, there will 2. That the cost (up to £75,800) is met from the 2011/12 GLA‘s be additional costs to the GLA. Consultation Programme budget. Supplementary funding may be Contributions will be sought from sought through negotiations for contributions from policy teams other policy teams within the GLA benefitting directly from the information collected. benefiting directly from the research prior to instructing ICM Research to undertake the additional work being requested. DD481 Agreed: 27/05/11 Lyn Garner Approval is being sought to fund the final phase of Sustain’s Good 1. The award of grant funding to Sustain’s Good Food on the Public Food on the Public Plate Plate programme for a sum of up to £80k during the period 1 April programme in 2011/12 (to be Page 245 2011 to 31 March 2012. governed by funding agreement). The cost of up to £80k can be met from the Transport and Environment’s Food budget. DD480 Agreed: 12/05/11 Martin Clarke The estimated costs of the expected contract will be in the 1. To the undertaking of a competitive procurement for the region of £60k per annum (costs provision of maintenance and support services for Oracle databases based on the current Oracle to cover a period of 3 years but renewable on a yearly basis. Maintenance and Support consolidated contract due to expire 2. The award of contract(s) for the provision of Oracle maintenance 22 July 2011). and support services to the bidder(s) providing the most economically advantageous submission upon presentation to the The maintenance and support Executive Director- Resources of a supporting evaluation report. contract will commence July 2011 for a term of three years but renewable on a yearly basis.
DD479 Agreed: 19/05/11 Dan Ritterband There is no active financial sponsorship for this event. 1. To stage the State of London Debate at Methodist Central Hall Westminster on 2 June 2011. There will be sponsorship of services in kind from LBC Radio 2. To allocate up to £70k for this event. (Global Radio) that include advert trails, transmitting the event live, 3. To undertake procurement activity to source such goods and/or hosting the phone-in and supplying services as are required for the State of London Debate 2011 and a broadcaster to host the event. award of contracts for such goods and/or services to bidders This sponsorship of services in-kind providing the most economically advantageous submissions. has value estimated up to £20k. Any additional sponsorship secured 4. To award a contract to AV company ‘experience’ for set design will be subject to appropriate and AV set up services and a related exemption from the approval as necessary. requirement to undertake competitive procurement activity in this regard. Page 246 DD474 Agreed: 19/05/11 Jeff Jacobs As part of the 2011 -12 budget process, £250k and £800k has been 1. To provide £250k funding to London Design Festival to contribute earmarked for Design and Fashion towards the delivery of the London Design Festival, in accordance respectively within the 2011-12 with the objectives specified in the grant agreement. Culture Strategy Programme budget. It is from within these 2. To provide £750k funding to British Fashion Council to contribute allocations that the proposed towards the delivery of London Fashion Week, in accordance with funding contributions to the the objectives specified in the grant agreement. London Design Festival (£250k) and British Fashion Council (£750k) will be met. DD473 Agreed: 10/05/11 Guto Harri The estimated maximum gross cost of the festival is £68k and the net 1. The award of grant funding to Capital Age Festival (2002) Limited cost to the GLA will be no more (CAF) (of up to £25k) as a contribution to its marketing and than £25k. The balance of £43k will publicity (£1k) and creative and infrastructure (£24k) costs of the be met by other funding streams Capital Age Festival at the South Bank Centre on 9 July 2011. from commercial sponsors, trusts, advertising and donations.
DD469 Agreed: 27/05/11 Jeff Jacobs As per DD393, the £ 50k contribution is to be funded from 1. To award a grant of £50k to Maccabi GB as a contribution toward LDA income already received in via its costs of its Enable Project, originally to have been delivered by the Mayoral Direction approved by the London Jewish Forum (as set out in DD393). MD385 for the Sporting Future for London Programme. DD467 Agreed: 06/05/11 Jeff Jacobs The estimated cost of the contract is £60k and will span two financial 1. The award of a two-year call-off contract to Jacobs Consultancy years (2011-12 & 2012-13). The (from Lot 1 of the SASPAC Development and Support services costs will be funded from the Framework Agreement) with a value of up to £60k (met by SASPAC budget, specifically income SASPAC’s income). generated from users through an annual software support fee each financial year. It should be noted that there are currently over 210 organisations paying the annual Page 247 subscription fee to support the continued development and maintenance of SASPAC. DD466 Agreed: 09/05/11 Martin Clarke The rationale that is proposed to be adopted for the allocation of the 1. The allocation of training budgets as laid out in the body of this £76k centralised training budget to document and the related budget amendments as required. Directorates, is to base sums on staff head-count within units. DD418 * Agreed: 17/02/11 Lyn Garner The estimated contract price of £25,000 will be funded from the 1. To approve the commencement of a mini competition process for 2010-11 and 2011-12 London Plan the provision of ‘London Plan’ related consultancy services for this Programme budget with the 2011- project at a cost of £25,000, to be met from Spatial Development 12 budget being subject to the Strategy programme budget. 2011-12 budget process currently underway. 2. To award the subsequent contract to the tenderer submitting the most economically advantageous tender. Mayor’s Report to the Assembly Background Document – List of decisions between 2 June 2011 and 29 June 2011 The Part 1 of Mayoral Decisions (from 6 April 2009) and Director Decisions (from 1 November 2010), and the non-confidential facts and advice supporting those decisions, are published on the GLA website ( http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions ) within one working day of approval, unless deferred. * = previously deferred publication. Ref Decision Date Approved by/ Financial Implications Mayoral Advisor MD849 Agreed: 28/06/11 Boris Johnson/ The Corporate Plan sets out how Peter Rogers the Agency will allocate its budget 1. The LDA’s Corporate Plan for the year 2011-12, including the in 2011-12. There are no direct spending plan and delivery forecast, as set out in the document financial implications for the GLA Page 248 attached in Appendix 1 to this MD. arising from the approval of the LDA’s Corporate Plan. It should be noted however, as the LDA is due for closure by the 31 March 2012, functions, projects, assets & liabilities are to be transferred to the GLA as per appendix 1 of this report. These transfers will be subject to further approval via the Authority’s decision-making process with the financial consequences of each transfer being considered in detail. MD847 Agreed: 17/06/11 Boris Johnson/ The VL Portion will receive £6m. Peter Rogers This constitutes the funding that 1. To approve the entering into the following agreements: the Trustees’ actuaries have assessed as being adequate for the • Scheme Rescue relating to the Visit London portion of the VL Portion to continue on a “self British Tourist Boards’ Staff Pension and Life Assurance sufficiency” basis, i.e. to meet the Scheme; accrued benefits of existing • Deed of Agreement relating to the British Tourist Board members in full as they fall due, as Pension and Life Assurance Scheme; well as ongoing expenses. In • An assignment of the Trustees’ rights in the insolvency of addition, the other creditors of VL Visit London to the GLA. will recover 100%. 2. To delegate to the Executive Director – Resources the authority to The GLA would pay the £6m to the agree and finalise the terms of the agreements set out above. Trustees immediately and would then receive the remaining assets 3. To note this is subject to the Trustees assigning their rights in the of VL which are estimated to be in insolvency to GLA, so that GLA receives any payment made by the the range of £3m to £3.4m less the Administrators from the insolvency which relates to the Scheme's costs of administration and any Section75 Debt (estimated to be in the order of £3m), to authorise subsequent insolvency procedure. the payment to the Visit London Trustees of £6m. The net cost to the GLA would therefore be in the range of £2.6m to £3m plus related professional Page 249 services’ costs. The GLA will also guarantee the £9.25m Section 75 Debt, although this will fall way almost immediately . In sum, the estimated net cost payment by the GLA of £3m would ensure all creditors would be paid in full, ie they would receive approximately £1.3m more than the amount that otherwise would be available for them as a result of VL entering in administration. The balance of £1.7m and the VL assets would place the VL Portion of the pension scheme into self sufficiency, including meeting the servicing costs of that fund for as long as it exists. There is no ongoing involvement for the GLA
after this agreement is actioned. MD840 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ As detailed within the main body of Peter Rogers this MD, up to £50m will be made 1. In order to promote continuity and effective programme delivery available over the 3 years of the across distinct funding rounds of the Mayor’s Outer London Fund programme. This consists of £10m and to ensure that resources are available for early delivery the funding from the LDA, which is to following is approved: be received in 2011-12 via a Mayoral Direction, for which • Outer London Fund programme and the mechanics of its approval is also being sought and operation, details of which are set out in this report and the up to £40m in capital funding, appendices here to; which it is anticipated that the GLA • Allocation of proposed operating costs budgeted for the will resource through prudential Fund as set out at 1.4 of this MD; borrowing over between 2011- and • Commencement of a procurement exercise for specialist 2014. advisory services as set out at 1.5 of this MD to assist Much of the funding for the Page 250 participating applicants and the subsequent award of contracts to bidder(s) submitting the most economically programme will be in the form of advantageous bids. provision of funding via grant funding, with some GLA 2. To direct the London Development Agency (LDA), in exercising procurement with regards to the its powers to further economic development and regeneration of specialist advisory services. Greater London and promote business efficiency, investment and Consequently, officers will have to competitiveness in Greater London, to transfer £10,000,000 ensure that the proposed grant (allocated in its 2011-12 budget for the Outer London Fund) to the agreements and procurement GLA. complies with the Authority’s contracts & funding code and the 3. To consent to such transfer from the LDA to the GLA in Funding Agreement toolkit and accordance with section 121 of the Greater London Authority Act should liaise with the procurement, 1999 as set out at 1.3 of this MD. legal and finance teams (where appropriate) to ensure that the 4. That, in order to maximise the efficiency with which the Fund associated contracts and funding programme can be delivered, delegate power to the Executive agreements are put in place to Director – Housing and Regeneration to approve all further deliver the proposed programme. recommendations (irrespective of value) relating to and facilitative of the ongoing development, implementation and delivery of the Fund programme including (without limitation) the award of grant funding under the Fund program me and entry into funding agreements governing the same. MD839 Agreed: 28/06/11 Boris Johnson/ This project will be fully funded by Kulveer Ranger an ODA grant to the GLA to the 1. The delivery of the ODA Olympic Retrofit project by the LDA and sum of £1.7m. The ODA will GLA environment teams, through the established RE:NEW and transfer 50% of the funding to the RE:FIT programmes. GLA on project initiation in line with their standard funding 2. To the GLA entering into a grant agreement with the ODA to approach. The remainder of the receive the full funding to deliver this project, and delegate signing funding will be made available by to the Executive Director of Development and Environment. the ODA upon GLA achieving specific delivery milestones. These 3. To delegate further project-related decision-making and signing, milestones will be confirmed within the parameters set out in this approval, to the Executive through grant award negotiations. Director of Development and Environment. Of the total £1.7m ODA grant Page 251 funding to the GLA, £1,310,000 will be capital and the balance of £390k revenue funding. MD830 Agreed: 28/06/11 Boris Johnson/ The GLA will inc ur no direct costs Richard Blakeway associated with the publishing of 1. That the Rough Sleeping Commissioning Framework 2011-15 (the the Commissioning Framework “Commissioning Framework”) be published for consultation. since the publication will be accessible via the Mayor’s website. 2. To delegate authority to Richard Blakeway, Mayoral Advisor for No hard copies will be produced. Housing to:- • approve any changes to the attached Commissioning Framework that arise out of the consultation; and • approve and publish the final Commissioning Framework 3. That any relevant funding decisions prior to publication of the final Commissioning Framework, be made in accordance with the priorities set out in the attached Commissioning Framework, and in line with the Authority’s Contracts and Funding Code. MD827 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ There are no costs to the GLA Guto Harri arising out of the appointment. TfL 1. To note the resignation of Kulveer Ranger from the TfL Board and meets all remuneration, allowances appoint Isabel Dedring as a member in accordance with paragraph and expenses paid to Board 2(1) of Schedule 10 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Members. However, as noted in this MD, officers of the GLA appointed under section 67(1)(b) cannot be remunerated for their membership of the TfL board. MD826 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ The proposed income will be used Lizzie Noel to fund expenditure in 2011-12 for 1. To direct the LDA to transfer revenue funding totalling £805k the above mentioned projects, with (revenue) to GLA for two new projects (Structured Youth Activities the income and associated and Mentoring For Young People At Risk). As the LDA will be expenditure being accounted for dissolved in a year, it is expedient for the GLA to undertake the within the 2011-12 Community procurement and contract management for both these projects. Safety budget. Page 252 MD824 Agreed: 15/06/11 Boris Johnson/ The EIB requires the GLA / LDA to Kulveer Ranger contribute 10 per cent of the total 1. That the GLA enters into two Grant Agreements with the project costs over three years. The European Investment Bank (who administer ELENA on behalf of the total contribution required from the European Commission) to support the RE:FIT and Decentralised GLA / LDA is 643,269. Energy programmes (as set out in MD678). The EIB will provide 5,789,423 of 2. That the GLA/LDA contributes ten per cent to the total project funding to the GLA over three costs, as required by EIB over three years ( 643,269). Budget has years. This gives a total project cost been identified over the next three years. of 6,432,692. 3. To delegate to Martin Clarke, Executive Director of Resources, the The 10% contribution of 643,269 signing rights for the two Funding Agreements. has been identified within the overall funding package agreed 4. That, subject to the above, allow officers to begin the between the GLA and the LDA for procurement process to support delivery of the RE:FIT and the next three years, and approved Decentralised Energy programmes, as set out in the ELENA by the Mayor. applications. The EIB will provide ELENA funding
of 5,789,423 in three stages; 40% is payable within 45 days of signing the funding agreement, 30% is payable on submission of the interim report, and 30% is payable upon completion. MD823 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ Approval is being sought to give a Richard Blakeway direction to the LDA to contribute 1. To direct the LDA to contribute £400k in revenue to the GLA in £400k to the GLA. This LDA one lump sum as soon as practicable for the Homeless to Work funding will be used to commission programme. the Homeless to Work programme in 2011/12. MD819 Agreed: 01/06/11 Boris Johnson/ Independent Members of the Page 253 Guto Harri Standards Committee are currently 1. Jointly with the London Assembly, to approve the re- paid an allowance of £125 and establishment of the GLA’s Standards Committee for the 2011-12 travel expenses for each meeting of year or until the abolition of the current Standards regime, whichever the Standards Committee (and its is earlier, on the same basis as it is currently constituted, namely with sub-committees) they attend. 5 Assembly Members (2 Conservative AMs, 2 Labour AMs and 1 Liberal Democrat AM), the Statutory Deputy Mayor, Richard Barnes Budget provision for the costs AM, and 6 Independent Members. incurred by the Standards Committee (in addition to the costs 2. To delegate the role of the Mayor on the Standards Committee to incurred re the supplement payable Richard Barnes AM, Statutory Deputy Mayor, to continue as a in relation to the Authority’s member for 2011-12. Monitoring Officer role – MD812) will be met from a £20k transfer 3. Jointly with the London Assembly, to agree to extend the current from the contingency budget to the appointments of Diane Mark, Sir David Durie and Sam Younger as Standards and Approvals Board Independent Members until April 2012 or the abolition of the budget. current Standards regime, whichever is earlier.
MD818 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ The £1.3m transfer of funds from Munira Mirza the LDA to GLA for Film London in 1. To approve GLA funding of £1.3m to Film London for the year 2011-12 will be made via a Mayoral 2011-12 in order for Film London to deliver activities supporting Direction. The receipt of the funds London’s film industry, in accordance with the objectives to be from the LDA will be accounted for specified in the grant agreement between the GLA and Film London. within the 2011-12 Culture Programme budget. 2. To direct the LDA to transfer £1.3m to the GLA for this purpose. The GLA will then administer the funding to Film London via a funding agreement in 2011-12, managed by the Culture Team. MD816 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ Following the transfer of funding Anthony Browne from the LDA to the GLA in 2011- 1. To exercise the power in section 27 of the Regional Development 12, the GLA will enter into a grant Agencies Act 1998 to direct the LDA to pay £300k revenue grant to agreement with TfL, in order to Page 254 the GLA for delivery of the GLA Group Skills Supplier Team. The deliver the project. team promotes skills and employment outcomes in the GLA Group supply chain. It should be noted that the phasing of payments to TfL has not yet been determined and will be governed by a formal funding agreement incorporating milestone payments and will be subject to the GLA’s decision-making process. In the event that the milestone payments span into 2012-13 and beyond, any surplus income at the end of each financial year is to be treated as income in advance. MD813* Agreed: 26/04/11 Boris Johnson/ The GLA contribution of £55k will Dan Ritterband be met via a carry forward request 1. To authorise and provide a total event budget of £55k as the from the 2010/11 Campaign and Mayor’s contribution towards the cost of staging public screening Events programme budget. If this events for the wedding of Prince William of Wales and Miss request is not approved then
Catherine Middleton on 29 April 2011. fu nding will need to be found from within the 2011/12 programme 2. Make note of a request to carry forward £50k from the 2010/11 budget. An additional £5k will be Campaign and Events programme budget and allocate £5k from the funded from the 2011/12 2011/12 programme budget. Campaign and Events programme budget 3. To approve the use of the Events for London PN421 Framework by the DCMS and Royal Parks (in partnership with the Mayor) to procure event management services for the event within the timescale available. A procurement exercise has been undertaken, with the contract being awarded to Jack Morton Worldwide. 4. To delegate approval for the Executive Director (Resources) to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DCMS, Royal Parks and the Mayor of London relating to the delivery and management of this project. Page 255 5. To approve spend of up to £800k to facilitate the appointment of Jack Morton Worldwide to produce the event on behalf of the Mayor, DCMS and Royal Parks. Any expenditure less the £55k event production contribution from the Mayor and any commercial revenue raised to be met by the DCMS. 6. To approve the appointment following a competitive tender exercise to contract of Central Catering Ltd to provide bar, catering, retail concession opportunities as appropriate, in order to raise commercial revenue to underwrite part of the costs of staging the event. 7. To note that the GLA’s Sponsorship Team (in liaison with the DCMS and Royal Parks) will continue to investigate the feasibility of securing further sponsorship and commercial income for the event. If such arrangements are secured by the GLA, to delegate to the Director of Marketing authority to approve entry into and sign such sponsorship agreements without the need for a further MD.
8. To sign an agreement with the BBC to enable BBC coverage of the event to be shown on the screens and for the BBC to provide two live hosts for the event, and no cost to the GLA, DCMS or Royal Parks. MD805 Agreed: 13/06/11 Boris Johnson/ Approval is sought to become an Edward Lister ordinary member of UDL at a 1. The GLA to become an ordinary member of Urban Design London. nominal annual fee of £1. 2. The GLA to execute a Deed of Adherence, a reimbursement Side The GLA will incur negligible costs Letter, and any other documents reasonably required in order to in respect of the annual become an ordinary member of UDL. subscription fee. 3. To note the nominal subscription fee associated with becoming a Any additional costs associated member of the Board at £1. with this membership, over and above the subscription fee, must be subject to further approval via the Page 256 Authority’s decision-making process. MD753* Agreed: 26/01/11 Boris Johnson/ The total estimated capital costs of Nick Griffin the project is £440,024. It should 1. To commence a competitive procurement exercise and subsequent be noted, however, capital award of a contract for a data replication solution, implementation, expenditure of £135k has already maintenance and support services to the bidder submitting the most been approved via MD734 for the economically advantageous tender (contract length 3 years with associated Secondary Data Hosting. option exercisable at the GLA’s discretion, for up to four further 12 The current proposal is seeking month extensions of maintenance and support services – provision approval for capital expenditure to be reviewed annually). totalling £305,024. 2. The allocation of a budget of £305k to fund the purchase of the The proposed capital costs are to Data Replication solution, additional software, implementation be funded from the 2010-11 services and first year costs. Capital Programme. The technology to enable the GLA to undertake 3. The allocation of a budget of £73k for years 2012/13 and backups of this nature at an subsequent years for support and maintenance of the solution. affordable price has only emerged through the course of this year. As
4. Delegation of power to the Executive Director of Resources to a result reprioritisation of the approve all necessary actions and documentation (and sign such Capital Programme has taken place documentation on behalf of the GLA) required for the award of any to ensure that sufficient funding is contract and ongoing operation of the contract, including (without available to undertake this work. limitation) the approval of payments to the contractor, where such decisions would ordinarily fall outside his powers under the GLA’s In addition to the capital works, Scheme of Delegation. once the solution has been implemented and as detailed within the main body of the report there will be ongoing support and maintenance costs totalling £73k from the 2012/13 financial-year and onwards. These costs will have to be contained within the existing Technology Group Revenue budget, with the budget being subject to the annual budget Page 257 process for each subsequent financial-year. MD274* Agreed: 13/01/10 Boris Johnson/ Market research was conducted and Dan Ritterband the estimated annual value of the 1. To commence an OJEU procurement exercise to source telephone telephone system maintenance systems maintenance services contract for a 3 year period services contract is estimated to be with provision for an extension for a further two years. approximately £20k. The contract is for a 3 year period commencing 2. The award of a contract to the tenderer providing the most from May 2010 with provision for economically advantageous submission upon presentation to the an extension for a further two Executive Director – Resources of a supporting evaluation report . years. 3. To delegate to the Executive Director – Resources power Contract costs will be met from to approve the award of contract. Technology Group’s Corporate ICT Systems 2010/11 budget subject to the annual budget process currently under way. Expenditure relating to future years will be subject the annual budget process.
DD504 Agreed: 25/06/11 Jeff Jacobs MD751 approved the receipt of £2m from the Reuben Foundation 1. Approve the award of a grant for £202,756 to AgeUK to run the to support the Team London building stronger neighbourhoods project. Programme of work. It is from within this funding stream that the 2. Approve the award of a grant for £250k to the Forestry proposed grants noted above Commission via a Deed of variation to administer the Team London totalling £452,756 will be funded. tree planting volunteer project through the ‘London Trees and Woodland Grant Scheme’. It should be noted that, the proposed funding to the Forestry Commission will be a variation to an existing agreement with the Forestry Commission to administer funding for the Mayor’s Street Trees Programme that was approved via MD295. Page 258 DD501 Agreed: 25/06/11 Jeff Jacobs The proposed grant of up to £33,500 will be funded from LDA 1. The GLA’s award of grant funding of up to £33,500 to and entry income already received in for the into a related funding agreement with Badminton England as a Sporting Future for London contribution to its costs of undertaking development activity Programme approved by the associated with the World Badminton Championships 2011being Mayoral Direction MD385. held in London. DD496 Agreed: 17/06/11 Jeff Jacobs The estimated cost of this contract is £49k, which will be funded from 1. To establish a contract (via a procurement process) with a suitable the 2011-12 Community Safety organisation that will support the next phase of development of Programme budget, specifically the Project Oracle: Time for Action element of the programme. • Establish a ‘hub’ (either virtual or physical) for developing and encouraging participation from Project Oracle projects – to As detailed within the main body of stimulate discussion, knowledge-sharing and peer-to-peer the report, the Community Safety improvement. This ‘hub’ will have a strategic relationship with Unit are essentially looking for a the GLA. partner (via this procurement • Develop and build relationships with research institutions in route), who will ideally be able to London and possibly elsewhere in the UK, with a view to match fund or secure funds from brokering relationships between researchers and youth other sources to enable the project programmes. to be self –financing after the • Identify and attract sources of funding for future research 2011-12 financial-year. The around Project Oracle initiatives so as to make the initiative self- proposed contract will enable the sustaining. scoping and partial delivery of this proposal. 2. To support funding of £49k. As this initiative may span more than one year, the same budgetary allocation will be sought for 2012/13. DD495 Agreed: 10/06/11 Jeff Jacobs MD751 approved the receipt of £2m from the Reuben Foundation 1. The award of a grant for £249,518 to the National Literacy Trust to support the Team London to run the Young Readers project. programme of work. It is from within this funding source that this proposed grant is to be funded. Page 259 DD492 Agreed: 24/06/11 Neale Coleman The Ambassadors programme is being funded from a mixture of 1. To approve retrospectively the GLA entering into a contract with grant funding to be transferred TimeOut for the sum of £30,400 excl. VAT to supply 16,000 copies from the LDA, from sponsorship of Time Out London and 16,000 copies of Time Out London Visitors and from the Olympic precept as Guide, to give to the 16,000 potential Ambassadors at the London part of the public sector funding Ambassadors recruitment events. package agreed with Government for the Games, as set out in 2. To approve an exemption from the requirement in the GLA’s MD808. Contracts and Funding Code to seek three or more written quotes in the procurement of the copies of TimeOut London. DD491 Agreed: 24/06/11 Neale Coleman The Ambassadors programme is being funded from a mixture of 1. To approve retrospectively the GLA entering into a contract with grant funding to be transferred Cimex Media Ltd for the sum of £20k excl. VAT to develop and from the LDA, from sponsorship create an online admin tool that will be used to record and store the and from the Olympic precept as outcomes of the recruitment process to see 16,000 applicants to the part of the public sector funding London Ambassadors programme. package agreed with Government for the Games, as set out in 2. To approve an exemption from the requirement in the GLA’s MD808. Contracts and Funding Code to seek three or more written quotes in the procurement of Cimex Media Ltd. DD490 Agreed: 24/06/11 Neale Coleman The Ambassadors programme is being funded from a mixture of 1. To approve retrospectively the GLA’s entering into a contract with grant funding to be transferred Incentivated Ltd for the sum of £13,600 excl. VAT to provide a text from the LDA, from sponsorship message platform and service to the GLA’s London Ambassadors and from the Olympic precept as Programme. part of the public sector funding package agreed with Government 2. To approve an exemption from the requirement in the GLA’s for the Games, as set out in Contracts and Funding Code to seek three or more written quotes in MD808. the procurement of Incentivated Ltd. DD489 Agreed: 20/06/11 Lyn Garner The total cost of this work w ill depend on the number of project 1. To approve the appointment of contractors who will prepare and proposals selected for LHP funding, submit one or more funding bids to the EU Joint Technology but is expected to be no more than Page 260 Initiatives programme. The total cost of this work is estimated to be £60k. no greater than £60k. DD488 Agreed: 23/06/11 David Lunts Approval is being sought to agree GLA expenditure of up to £100k of 1. The award of contracts to which up to £50k will go to BBP Regeneration for work on an assets • BBP Regeneration for the provision of services required for the strategy and up to £50k to Shared GLA’s production of an assets strategy (with a value of up to Intelligence on a business case. The £50k). funds will come from the GLA contingency for 2011-12. • Shared Intelligence for the provision of services required for the GLA’s production of a business case (with a value of up to £50k); Any changes to this proposal must be subject to further approval via which must be submitted to DCLG in respect of the transfer of LDA the Authority’s decision-making and HCA assets to the GLA. process. 2. The related exemptions from the requirement of section 3.8 of the GLA’s Contracts and Funding Code to conduct competitive procurement exercises to source such services. DD487 Agreed: 06/06/11 Jeff Jacobs MD815 approved the direction to the LDA for the transfer of £429k 1. To award a grant agreement to the Equality & Human Rights budgeted allocation for the Commission with a value of up to £25k to provide matched funding Diversity Works for London to engage a consultant firm to: Programme in 2011-12 to the GLA. • Assess the feasibility and mechanics of implementing a national It is from within this income stream equality standard; that the proposed grant of up to • Assess the commercial sustainability of this model and/or use to £25k to the Equality & Human influence national government to fund this from 2011/12; Rights Commission will be funded.
• Provided that EHRC ensure that the agreement with the consultant, allow the GLA to rely on the consultant’s assessment and give the GLA, the right to enforce the terms of the consultancy agreement. Page 261 DD486 Agreed: 17/06/11 Alan Benson The cost can be met from the 2011/12 Rough Sleeping budget. 1. The award of GLA grant funding of up to £15k as a contribution to London Councils’ costs of coordination and delivery of the 2011 The proposed funding is to be Andy Ludlow Homelessness Awards. governed by a funding agreement. Consequently, officers are reminded to ensure that they liaise with both Legal and Finance Teams in the preparation and execution of the funding agreements. In addition, the monitoring of the funding and associated payments must be in line with the Authority’s Funding Agreement Toolkit. DD472 Agreed: 07/06/11 Neale Coleman In the approval given in MD500, dated 21 December 2009, it was 1. Call off services to the value of £72,788 from the management specified that a Director’s Decision consultancy framework agreement (agreed by MD500) entitled the Form would be required for each “GLA City Operations Project Management Services under the Office piece of work required from the of Government Commerce Buying Solutions (OGCBS) Consultancy City Operations Management Solutions Services Agreement” with Deloitte LLP. Consultancy Services. 2. Draw-down funding from the 2011-12 City Operations The appointed resources will be programme budget for specialist resources to lead work to deliver engaged under the terms of the the next operational readiness event for the City Operations management consultancy call-off programme. contract between City Operations and Deloitte. The work required for this assignment has been costed at £72,788 plus VAT. DD4 51 Agreed: 09/06/11 Dan Ritterband MD641 stipulated costs to the total of £295k for the logistical 1. Retrospective approval to increase the management specification management of Sport Accord with company M through the COI increasing the cost by a further Conference and Exhibition. £50k for the Sport Accord event in April 2011. Extra financial commitment for the Page 262 logistical requirements is apparent, with an increase of £50k now required. It is proposed that this £50k is funded from savings within the Opening Ceremony budget of Sport Accord as per DD437. DD445 Agreed: 14/06/11 Lyn Garner It is proposed to fund the cost of £30k by means of carrying forward 1. A grant of £30k to be awarded to Keep Britain Tidy (on the terms unspent programme budget from of a standards GLA funding agreement) to provide a coordinator 2010/11. who will help deliver the 2011/12 Capital Clean-up campaign. DD429* Agreed: 16/03/11 Lyn Garner The estimated cost of this contract is £15k and the work will continue 1. The procurement and subsequent award (on the basis of the most into 2011/12. The costs can be economically advantageous submission) of a contract for services met from the Housing Unit’s required for the completion of a study to determine how best to 2010/11 Private Rented Sector increase the number of accredited landlords in London (estimated budget, which is funded externally. contract value - £15k).
DD414* Agreed: 24/05/11 Neale Coleman There will be funding agreements with each borough who will only 1. To grant fund each London borough a maximum sum of £50k to get paid on evidence of spending assist with the delivery of the LOOK and FEEL programme within on the Kit of Parts and artistic their area, at a total cost of up to £1.6m. content from the London Outdoor Touring Festival, up to a maximum of £50k. This means a total of up to £1.6m is committed as a result of this decision. This will be payable from the LOOK & FEEL budget which is funded from the council tax precept for the Games so that there is no additional cost to the GLA. There is provision for this sum within the Your 2012 element of Page 263 the LOOK & FEEL budget which is managed within the £32 million programme agreed with Government. MD696 gave approval for the budget including a delegation to the Mayor’s Olympic Adviser and Executive Director of Resources to approve changes to the proposed budget and proposals for individual elements of the programme. The budget will be kept under review and monitored by the 2012 City Operations team and integrated with existing GLA financial management arrangements.
DD411* Agreed: 03/02/11 Guto Harri MD651 allocated a total expenditure budget in 2010/11 of 1. A tender process for a consultant at an approximate cost of £30k £165k to the Story of London to develop and deliver a Contemporary Arab Festival in summer (£100k LDA and £65k GLA) under 2011. the joint events agreement. 2. To fund this cost through the re-allocation of £25k of under- Following completion of the Story spend from the ‘Story of London 2010’ budget and through a £5k of London project the GLA contribution from the 2010/11 Culture Strategy budget. allocation of £65k was not fully utilised and there is available core GLA budget of up to £25k to allocate to this consultancy. A further £5k is to be contributed from the 2010/11 Culture Strategy programme. These budgets will be combined to form an Arab Festival budget allocation in 2010/11. All Page 264 budget adjustments will be made. ODD21* Agreed: 04/10/10 Neale Coleman/ There are no direct implications for Martin Clarke the GLA. OPLC has budget To approve as a Founder Member of the OPLC, the OPLC’s: provision in 2010-11 for the estimated costs of the Masterplan, 1. Commitment of funding from its programme budget for the but the budget for 2011-12 is current financial year (FY 2010/11) to prepare the legacy planning subject to the outcome of the application. Spending Review settlement. 2. Further commitment of funding from its programme budget in FY 2011/12, which will only be committed once the Company’s funding has been confirmed. Part 2 of this report is confidential under the FOI Act.
ODD13* Agreed: 22/04/10 Neale Coleman/ There are no direct financial Martin Clarke implications for the GLA. The LDA 1. To approve, on behalf of the Mayor in his role as a Founder funding of £3.1 million for capital Member of the Olympic Park Legacy Company, the Board of the elements of the project is a capped Company’s recommendation for involvement in operating the amount. ArcelorMittal Orbit following its practical completion in December 2011. 2. To the ways of working and set of principles proposed by the Company as the basis for the Company to progress its involvement in the project. Page 265
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 266 Agenda Item 8
Subject: Payments of over £500 to suppliers: 1 April 2011 to 25 June 2011 Report to: Budget Monitoring Sub -Committee Report of: Executive Director of Resources Date: 19 July 2011 This report will be considered in public
1. Summary 1.1 This report provides information on payments to suppliers over £500 during the period of 1 April 2011 to 25 June 2011. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Sub-Committee notes the report. 3. Background 3.1 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to all local authorities in June 2010 requiring that they publish expenditure over £500. Compliance was required from January 2011 and the GLA has made this data available to the public on the london.gov.uk website since August 2010. 4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 Appendix 1 shows all the payments over £500 (excluding VAT), that have been made during the above-mentioned period. Payments are listed by supplier and a short description is provided for all payments. The amount stated is the total value of the invoices paid to the supplier within the period dates. 4.2 If Members require further details on any of these suppliers or payments, they should notify the contact officer in advance if possible. Otherwise, details may have to be provided after the meeting, as it is not possible to have them to hand. 5. Legal Implications 5.1 There are no direct legal implications arising out of this report.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 267
6. Financial Implications 6.1 This report is entirely concerned with financial matters, but it relates to expenditure from existing approved budgets rather than new expenditure. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Suppliers with turnover of over £ 500 - Report for the period 1 April 2011 to 25 June 2011 Local Government (Access t o Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: David Gallie Telephone: 020 7983 4968 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 268 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total 2CL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 4,635.00 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 415.00 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 35.00 2CL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Total 5,085.00 2E2 UK LIMITED IT CONSULTANCY 8,300.00 2E2 UK LIMITED Total 8,300.00 51% STUDIOS [LONDON] LTD GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 1,000.00 51% STUDIOS [LONDON] LTD Total 1,000.00 A B ROWAN-DEMPSEY MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1,000.00 A B ROWAN-DEMPSEY Total 1,000.00 A MCDONNELL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 520.00 A MCDONNELL Total 520.00 ACCESS SPORT GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 39,369.84 ACCESS SPORT Total 39,369.84 ADAPT-IT COMPUTER SOFTWARE 1,015.00 ADAPT-IT Total 1,015.00 ADDINGTON PALACE EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 1,586.25 ADDINGTON PALACE Total 1,586.25 ADECCO UK LTD AGENCY STAFF 9,311.88 ADECCO UK LTD Total 9,311.88 AHREND LIMITED EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 20,598.84 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,212.60 AHREND LIMITED Total 23,811.44 AIKONA STAFF TRAINING 12,300.00 AIKONA Total 12,300.00 ALL CLEAN GROUP BUILDING MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 12,123.34 ALL CLEAN GROUP Total 12,123.34 ALLOFUS DESIGN LTD PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 2,127.66 ALLOFUS DESIGN LTD Total 2,127.66 AMSTORE CD PRODUCTION LIMITED PRINTING 556.25 AMSTORE CD PRODUCTION LIMITED Total 556.25 ANNABEL JACKSON ASSOCIATES LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,500.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 2,500.00 ANNABEL JACKSON ASSOCIATES LTD Total 7,000.00 ARAB NEW TRENDS LTD - ANT GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 20,000.00 ARAB NEW TRENDS LTD - ANT Total 20,000.00 ARCHANT LONDON CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 613.60 ARCHANT LONDON Total 613.60 ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 103,678.00 ARTS COUNCIL Total 103,678.00 ARTSADMIN EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 666.67 ARTSADMIN Total 666.67 ASPERITY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LTD STAFF WELFARE BENEFITS 1,875.00 ASPERITY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LTD Total 1,875.00 ATIYA HASSAN MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 8,500.00 ATIYA HASSAN Total 8,500.00 ATLANTIC UMBRELLA COMPANY LIMITED IT CONSULTANCY 2,700.00 ATLANTIC UMBRELLA COMPANY LIMITED Total 2,700.00 AUDIT COMMISSION STATUTORY & NON STATUTORY AUDIT FEES 24,909.00 AUDIT COMMISSION Total 24,909.00 AUGHNAMULLEN PIPE BAND MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 2,000.00 AUGHNAMULLEN PIPE BAND Total 2,000.00 BAC ENTERPRISES LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 500.00 BAC ENTERPRISES LTD Total 500.00 BADENOCH & CLARK LTD AGENCY STAFF 11,091.03 BADENOCH & CLARK LTD Total 11,091.03 BANNER BUSINESS SERVICES LTD EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 80.64 STATIONERY 12,201.06 BANNER BUSINESS SERVICES LTD Total 12,281.70 BARNET GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 13,970.00 BARNET Total 13,970.00 BCD TRAVEL HOTEL ACCOMMODATION 2,409.34 BCD TRAVEL Total 2,409.34 BETTANY HUGHES MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1,000.00
Page 269 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total BETTANY HUGHES Total 1,000.00 BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 52,626.00 BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL Total 52,626.00 BLISS EVENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED EVENT MANAGEMENT FEE 12,989.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 52,508.51 BLISS EVENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Total 65,497.51 BLIZZARD UTILITIES LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,980.00 BLIZZARD UTILITIES LIMITED Total 4,980.00 BLOSSOMS HEALTHCARE LLP STAFF MEDICAL INSURANCE & TREATMENT 24,410.00 BLOSSOMS HEALTHCARE LLP Total 24,410.00 BMG RESEARCH MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 20,185.00 BMG RESEARCH Total 20,185.00 BOLTON & QUINN LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 6,000.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 2,587.23 BOLTON & QUINN LTD Total 8,587.23 BOW TIE EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 900.00 EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 360.00 PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 80,973.99 PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 510.00 BOW TIE Total 82,743.99 BRAND FOUNDRY DESIGN EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 4,570.00 BRAND FOUNDRY DESIGN Total 4,570.00 BRITISH GAS BUSINESS ELECTRICITY 1,333.37 BRITISH GAS BUSINESS Total 1,333.37 BROOKSBY NEWS SERVICE CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 172.90 DOCUMENT ARCHIVE & STORAGE 345.20 BROOKSBY NEWS SERVICE Total 518.10 BSI MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 999.00 BSI MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Total 999.00 BT MAINTENANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 1,234.58 TELEPHONE LINE RENT, CALLS & EQUIPMENT 2,428.08 BT Total 3,662.66 BT CONFERENCING TELEPHONE LINE RENT, CALLS & EQUIPMENT 714.21 BT CONFERENCING Total 714.21 BTCV GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 1,900.00 BTCV Total 1,900.00 BUILDING RESEARCH EST. LTD (BRE) MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 14,079.00 BUILDING RESEARCH EST. LTD (BRE) Total 14,079.00 BUILDINGS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 13,870.00 BUILDINGS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT Total 13,870.00 BULLET MARKETING LIMITED ADVERTISING 1,330.00 BULLET MARKETING LIMITED Total 1,330.00 BUREAU VERITAS UK LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 5,213.33 BUREAU VERITAS UK LTD Total 5,213.33 BYTES SOFTWARE SERVICES COMPUTER SOFTWARE 16,131.67 BYTES SOFTWARE SERVICES Total 16,131.67 BYWATERS (LEYTON) LIMITED NON RECYCLABLE WASTE DISPOSAL/REFUSE COLLECTION 3,988.27 BYWATERS (LEYTON) LIMITED Total 3,988.27 CALYX MANAGED SERVICES LTD COMPUTER HARDWARE 23,101.00 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 21,792.22 CALYX MANAGED SERVICES LTD Total 44,893.22 CAMBRIDGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATES LTD STAFF WELFARE BENEFITS 14,000.00 CAMBRIDGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATES LTD Total 14,000.00 CAPITA SYMONDS LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 165,096.00 CAPITA SYMONDS LIMITED Total 165,096.00 CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 2,260.00 CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY Total 2,260.00 CAPSCAN LTD SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 3,179.35 CAPSCAN LTD Total 3,179.35 CATALYST STAFF TRAINING 2,000.00 CATALYST Total 2,000.00 CATHERINE JONES MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 9,000.00 CATHERINE JONES Total 9,000.00 CATHERINE JONES DES MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 3,000.00
Page 270 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total CATHERINE JONES DES Total 3,000.00 CAUSEWAY TECHNOLOGIES LTD STATIONERY 5,840.82 CAUSEWAY TECHNOLOGIES LTD Total 5,840.82 CBH TRAINING LIMITED STAFF TRAINING 1,090.00 CBH TRAINING LIMITED Total 1,090.00 CDPSOFT MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 18,000.00 CDPSOFT Total 18,000.00 CHEWED MEDIA STAFF TRAINING 2,000.00 CHEWED MEDIA Total 2,000.00 CHRISTINA CRAIG MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,517.50 CHRISTINA CRAIG Total 4,517.50 CHUBB SECURITY PERSONNEL SECURITY SERVICES (GUARDS) 77,590.19 CHUBB SECURITY PERSONNEL Total 77,590.19 CIPFA CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 12,483.58 OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 1,750.00 STAFF TRAINING 1,995.00 CIPFA Total 16,228.58 CITIZENS ADVICE GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 18,000.00 CITIZENS ADVICE Total 18,000.00 CITY OF LONDON MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 50.00 SECONDED STAFF - NON GROUP 21,000.00 CITY OF LONDON Total 21,050.00 CITY OF WESTMINSTER GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 57,893.77 MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 2,070.00 RATES 29,450.70 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Total 89,414.47 CMP COMMUNICATIONS LTD PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 4,100.00 CMP COMMUNICATIONS LTD Total 4,100.00 COI COMMUNICATIONS MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 17,132.47 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 449,000.00 MARKETING SERVICES 60,378.22 PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 13,979.87 COI COMMUNICATIONS Total 540,490.56 COLIN PATTERSON PHOTOGRAPHER PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 500.00 COLIN PATTERSON PHOTOGRAPHER Total 500.00 COLORSET MAPS, TIMETABLES & FARE INFORMATION 384.00 PRINTING 200.00 COLORSET Total 584.00 COLOURSONIC MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 2,154.42 COLOURSONIC Total 2,154.42 COMMUNICATION GAP LTD OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 845.00 COMMUNICATION GAP LTD Total 845.00 COMPUTACENTER COMPUTER CONSUMABLES 17.45 COMPUTER HARDWARE 54,760.47 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 38,092.12 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 230.99 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 16,338.07 TELEPHONE LINE RENT, CALLS & EQUIPMENT 445.00 COMPUTACENTER Total 109,884.10 CORE STAFF TRAINING 3,334.00 CORE Total 3,334.00 CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD GAS 10,495.81 CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD Total 10,495.81 COURIER SYSTEMS COURIERS 1,497.36 STATUTORY ADVERTISING & NOTIFICATIONS 227.69 COURIER SYSTEMS Total 1,725.05 CREATIVE INTELL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,725.00 CREATIVE INTELL Total 4,725.00 CRISTIE DATA LIMITED COMPUTER HARDWARE 2,650.00 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 20,498.00 CRISTIE DATA LIMITED Total 23,148.00 CROWN WORLDWIDE LTD CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 328.32 DOCUMENT ARCHIVE & STORAGE 173.74 CROWN WORLDWIDE LTD Total 502.06
Page 271 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total CROYDON COUNCIL GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 28,000.00 CROYDON COUNCIL Total 28,000.00 DAMOVO UK LTD MAINTENANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 5,029.47 DAMOVO UK LTD Total 5,029.47 DANDY BOOKSELLERS LTD CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 784.72 DANDY BOOKSELLERS LTD Total 784.72 DATA PROTECT UK MANAGE IT SERVICES 1,349.40 DATA PROTECT UK Total 1,349.40 DATA TRACK TECHNOLOGY PLC TELEPHONE LINE RENT, CALLS & EQUIPMENT 5,700.00 DATA TRACK TECHNOLOGY PLC Total 5,700.00 DAVID BALL BUILDING MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 55,978.86 DAVID BALL Total 55,978.86 DEEPSTORE LIMITED (USE 10012154) CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 7,495.29 DEEPSTORE LIMITED (USE 10012154) Total 7,495.29 DELOITTE & TOUCHE MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 89,132.00 STATUTORY & NON STATUTORY AUDIT FEES 35,902.00 DELOITTE & TOUCHE Total 125,034.00 DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA & SPO OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 963.02 SECONDED STAFF - NON GROUP 33,744.49 DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA & SPO Total 34,707.51 DEPT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVER MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 20,977.76 DEPT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVER Total 20,977.76 DESIGN MUSEUM EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 1,600.00 DESIGN MUSEUM Total 1,600.00 DISCOVERY LEARNING MISCELLANEOUS FINANCE EXPENSES 700.00 DISCOVERY LEARNING Total 700.00 DOGSTAR DESIGN LTD MARKETING DESIGN & ARTWORK 550.00 DOGSTAR DESIGN LTD Total 550.00 DOTTED EYES DATA PURCHASE 1,320.00 DOTTED EYES Total 1,320.00 EAST LONDON CENTRE EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 552.70 EAST LONDON CENTRE Total 552.70 EAVES HOUSING FOR WOMEN MARKETING SERVICES 4,176.79 EAVES HOUSING FOR WOMEN Total 4,176.79 EC HARRIS LLP BUILDING MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 4,801.00 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 9,602.00 EC HARRIS LLP Total 14,403.00 ECIRCLE LTD MARKETING SERVICES 8,972.82 ECIRCLE LTD Total 8,972.82 EDENRED STAFF WELFARE BENEFITS 32,556.10 EDENRED Total 32,556.10 EDF ENERGY ELECTRICITY 19,286.03 EDF ENERGY Total 19,286.03 ELEMENT ENERGY MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 14,419.75 ELEMENT ENERGY Total 14,419.75 ELMGREEN & DRAGSET GBR MEALS REFRESHMENTS & SUBSISTENCE 1,126.14 ELMGREEN & DRAGSET GBR Total 1,126.14 ELSEVIER SCIENCE CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 6,068.68 ELSEVIER SCIENCE Total 6,068.68 EMILY SKEPPNER MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 2,100.00 EMILY SKEPPNER Total 2,100.00 EMJ MANAGEMENT LTD UNIFORMS 811.20 EMJ MANAGEMENT LTD Total 811.20 ENGLAND 2018 LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 251,807.40 ENGLAND 2018 LTD Total 251,807.40 ENGLAND ATHLETICS GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 40,000.00 ENGLAND ATHLETICS Total 40,000.00 ENTEC MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 2,186.03 ENTEC Total 2,186.03 ENTERPRISE PLANTS LTD FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,129.26 HORTICULTURAL EXPENSES 564.63 ENTERPRISE PLANTS LTD Total 1,693.89 ENVIROGUARD HEALTH & SAFETY PEST CONTROL 547.49 ENVIROGUARD Total 547.49
Page 272 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total ENVIRONMENT AGENCY GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 117,500.00 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Total 117,500.00 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UK CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 565.00 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UK Total 565.00 ESRI (UK) LIMITED SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 13,025.00 ESRI (UK) LIMITED Total 13,025.00 ESSEX CALEDONIAN PIPE BAND MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 500.00 ESSEX CALEDONIAN PIPE BAND Total 500.00 ETC VENUES LTD EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 5,550.00 ETC VENUES LTD Total 5,550.00 ETHERLIVE MAINTENANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 77,782.80 ETHERLIVE Total 77,782.80 EUNOMIA RESEARCH AND CONSULTING LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 8,900.00 EUNOMIA RESEARCH AND CONSULTING LTD Total 8,900.00 EURO RSCG RILEY LIMITED RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING 23,960.18 EURO RSCG RILEY LIMITED Total 23,960.18 EURODATA SYSTEMS PLC MANAGE IT SERVICES 9,350.00 EURODATA SYSTEMS PLC Total 9,350.00 EVE TRAKWAY EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 4,208.22 SECURITY SERVICES (GUARDS) 5,775.00 EVE TRAKWAY Total 9,983.22 EXPERIENCECO EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 2,253.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 12,937.00 EXPERIENCECO Total 15,190.00 FACTIVA CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,700.00 FACTIVA Total 2,700.00 FIELD STUDIES COUNCIL STAFF TRAINING 1,050.00 FIELD STUDIES COUNCIL Total 1,050.00 FILCRIS LTD PLANT & EQUIPMENT PURCHASES 632.88 FILCRIS LTD Total 632.88 FILM LONDON LTD GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 75,000.00 FILM LONDON LTD Total 75,000.00 FITNESS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 25,000.00 FITNESS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Total 25,000.00 FLEISHMAN-HILLARD GROUP LIMITED STAFF TRAINING 3,400.00 FLEISHMAN-HILLARD GROUP LIMITED Total 3,400.00 FOOTBALL FOUNDATION GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 136,961.90 FOOTBALL FOUNDATION Total 136,961.90 FOOTPOWER LTD GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 533.00 FOOTPOWER LTD Total 533.00 FORDHAM RESEARCH DATA PURCHASE 4,500.00 FORDHAM RESEARCH Total 4,500.00 FORESTRY COMMISSION GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 936,499.09 FORESTRY COMMISSION Total 936,499.09 FORGE LANE PRIMARY SCHOOL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 3,000.00 FORGE LANE PRIMARY SCHOOL Total 3,000.00 FPS (FIRE PROTECTION) LIMITED EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17.50 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 594.97 FPS (FIRE PROTECTION) LIMITED Total 612.47 FRASER MUGGERIDGE STUDIO PRINTING 6,437.00 FRASER MUGGERIDGE STUDIO Total 6,437.00 FREE COORDINATES LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 4,800.00 FREE COORDINATES LTD Total 4,800.00 FREEMAN OLIVER CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 7,300.00 FREEMAN OLIVER Total 7,300.00 FURNELLS MARKETING SERVICES 7,031.00 FURNELLS Total 7,031.00 FUTERRA SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATIO OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 900.00 FUTERRA SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATIO Total 900.00 G STOW PLC BUILDING MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 1,330.00 G STOW PLC Total 1,330.00 GEMS NFX EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 592.00 GEMS NFX Total 592.00 GFK NOP LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 500.00
Page 273 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total GFK NOP LTD Total 500.00 GIGL GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 2,500.00 GIGL Total 2,500.00 GLOBAL CROSSING TELEPHONE LINE RENT, CALLS & EQUIPMENT 4,700.82 GLOBAL CROSSING Total 4,700.82 GOVERNMENT ACTUARY'S DEPARTMENT STAFF TRAINING 580.25 GOVERNMENT ACTUARY'S DEPARTMENT Total 580.25 GOWAN WEBSTER PARTNERSHIP LTD STAFF TRAINING 1,200.00 GOWAN WEBSTER PARTNERSHIP LTD Total 1,200.00 GRAHAM ROBB ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 2,000.00 GRAHAM ROBB ASSOCIATES Total 2,000.00 GREATER LONDON HIRE LTD BUSINESS FARES 709.17 GREATER LONDON HIRE LTD Total 709.17 GREATER LONDON VOLUNTEERING MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 126,325.00 GREATER LONDON VOLUNTEERING Total 126,325.00 GREENWICH & DOCKLANDS FESTIVALS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 45,000.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 4,500.00 GREENWICH & DOCKLANDS FESTIVALS Total 49,500.00 GROUNDWORK GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 155,917.00 GROUNDWORK Total 155,917.00 GRS ASSOCIATES LTD MARKETING SERVICES 1,250.00 GRS ASSOCIATES LTD Total 1,250.00 HALAROSE COMPUTER HARDWARE 2,914.32 HALAROSE Total 2,914.32 HALCROW GROUP LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 31,854.00 HALCROW GROUP LIMITED Total 31,854.00 HANS DE KRETSER MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 1,600.00 HANS DE KRETSER Total 1,600.00 HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 2,400.00 HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS Total 2,400.00 HAYLEY MADDEN PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 1,560.00 HAYLEY MADDEN Total 1,560.00 HAYMARKET EXHIBITIONS LTD CONFERENCES & SEMINARS 1,098.00 HAYMARKET EXHIBITIONS LTD Total 1,098.00 HAYMARKET PUBLISHING SERVICES LTD CONFERENCES & SEMINARS 299.00 STAFF TRAINING 249.00 HAYMARKET PUBLISHING SERVICES LTD Total 548.00 HAYS ACCOUNTANCY PERSONNEL AGENCY STAFF 15,675.00 HAYS ACCOUNTANCY PERSONNEL Total 15,675.00 HEALTH LINK OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 2,500.00 HEALTH LINK Total 2,500.00 HUNTRESS SEARCH LTD AGENCY STAFF 68,452.38 RECRUITMENT AGENCY FEES 426.25 HUNTRESS SEARCH LTD Total 68,878.63 HYDER MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 64,283.51 HYDER Total 64,283.51 IBP STAFF TRAINING 6,617.50 IBP Total 6,617.50 ICENDRIS LTD STAFF TRAINING 5,727.55 ICENDRIS LTD Total 5,727.55 ICM RESEARCH LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 18,950.00 MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 40,000.00 ICM RESEARCH LIMITED Total 58,950.00 IMAGINATORS MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 2,918.00 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 98.00 IMAGINATORS Total 3,016.00 IMPACT DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LTD MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 6,455.50 IMPACT DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LTD Total 6,455.50 INBAY LIMITED COMPUTER HARDWARE 1,356.09 INBAY LIMITED Total 1,356.09 INCENTIVATED LIMITED MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 2,750.00 MARKETING SERVICES 450.00 INCENTIVATED LIMITED Total 3,200.00 INDIGO & ASSOCIATES LTD STAFF TRAINING 2,430.00
Page 274 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total INDIGO & ASSOCIATES LTD Total 2,430.00 INFORMATION TRANSFER COMPUTER SOFTWARE 800.00 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 2,400.00 INFORMATION TRANSFER Total 3,200.00 INNOVAS SOLUTIONS LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 31,000.00 INNOVAS SOLUTIONS LTD Total 31,000.00 INNOVATIVE OUTPUT SOLUTIONS (LONDON MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 570.00 PRINTING 2,973.00 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 597.00 INNOVATIVE OUTPUT SOLUTIONS (LONDON Total 4,140.00 INSIGHT DIRECT UK LIMITED SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 7,146.74 INSIGHT DIRECT UK LIMITED Total 7,146.74 IPSOS MORI MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,166.66 IPSOS MORI Total 4,166.66 ISLE OF FLOWERS MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 680.00 ISLE OF FLOWERS Total 680.00 ITINERIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 5,770.00 ITINERIS Total 5,770.00 JACK MORTON WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 368,651.31 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 623,366.46 MARKETING SERVICES 43,186.80 JACK MORTON WORLDWIDE Total 1,035,204.57 JACOBS ENGINEERING UK LTD. MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 64,433.75 MAPS, TIMETABLES & FARE INFORMATION 1,781.25 JACOBS ENGINEERING UK LTD. Total 66,215.00 JAMES O JENKINS PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 1,530.00 JAMES O JENKINS Total 1,530.00 JONES YARRELL & CO LTD CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 616.90 JONES YARRELL & CO LTD Total 616.90 JUDITH RILEY STAFF TRAINING 2,000.00 JUDITH RILEY Total 2,000.00 JULIA DODD MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1,500.00 JULIA DODD Total 1,500.00 JULIE'S BICYCLE LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 16,150.00 JULIE'S BICYCLE LTD Total 16,150.00 JW CREATIVE DESIGN LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 1,150.00 MARKETING DESIGN & ARTWORK 1,050.00 PRINTING 840.00 JW CREATIVE DESIGN LIMITED Total 3,040.00 KAIROS TRAINING LIMITED STAFF TRAINING 2,836.50 KAIROS TRAINING LIMITED Total 2,836.50 KANTAR MEDIA INTELLIGENCE LIMITED CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 1,276.00 CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 638.00 PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 90.00 KANTAR MEDIA INTELLIGENCE LIMITED Total 2,004.00 KELWAY (UK) COMPUTER HARDWARE 2,120.02 MANAGE IT SERVICES 3,657.09 KELWAY (UK) Total 5,777.11 KOIS MIAH PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 2,075.00 KOIS MIAH Total 2,075.00 KPMG CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 10,908.00 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 10,232.00 KPMG Total 21,140.00 L B BEXLEY GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 122,347.50 L B BEXLEY Total 122,347.50 L B HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 10,000.00 SECONDED STAFF - NON GROUP 44,152.25 L B HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Total 54,152.25 L B HILLINGDON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 10,000.00 L B HILLINGDON Total 10,000.00 L B OF HARINGEY GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 14,708.45 L B OF HARINGEY Total 14,708.45 LAND USE CONSULTANTS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 17,606.00 LAND USE CONSULTANTS Total 17,606.00
Page 275 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total LANDMARK INFORMATION GROUP LTD CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 3,475.00 LANDMARK INFORMATION GROUP LTD Total 3,475.00 LANDMARK SOLUTIONS CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,532.00 LANDMARK SOLUTIONS Total 2,532.00 LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMIC FEES - EMPLOYEES 960.00 LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY Total 960.00 LEO TEXTILES LIMITED UNIFORMS 2,660.20 LEO TEXTILES LIMITED Total 2,660.20 LIFT GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 60,000.00 MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1,050.00 LIFT Total 61,050.00 LIMELIGHT SPORTS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 58,485.00 LIMELIGHT SPORTS Total 58,485.00 LOCOG EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 203.15 GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 19,500.00 MARKETING SERVICES 32,500.00 PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 1,181.85 LOCOG Total 53,385.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 86,006.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING Total 86,006.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 70,000.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT Total 70,000.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 100,000.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON Total 100,000.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 114,487.94 LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING Total 114,487.94 LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 990.25 LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH Total 990.25 LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 38,099.58 LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW Total 38,099.58 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 128,036.09 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 17,250.00 STAFF WELFARE BENEFITS 952.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON Total 146,238.09 LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 62,988.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH Total 62,988.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 72,462.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM Total 72,462.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 150,068.41 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 0.59 LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON Total 150,069.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 655,000.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM Total 655,000.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 178,372.50 LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Total 178,372.50 LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THA GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 141,079.62 LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THA Total 141,079.62 LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 35,909.66 LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON Total 35,909.66 LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 500.00 LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS Total 500.00 LONDON BOXING GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 25,000.00 LONDON BOXING Total 25,000.00 LONDON CENTRAL YMCA LTD GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 92,757.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 3,000.00 STAFF TRAINING 995.00 LONDON CENTRAL YMCA LTD Total 96,752.00 LONDON COUNCILS GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 12,500.00 LONDON COUNCILS Total 12,500.00 LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 171,500.00 SECONDED STAFF - NON GROUP 69,579.09 STAFF TRAINING 14,928.85 LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Total 256,007.94 LONDON LETTERBOX MARKETING MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 3,004.59
Page 276 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total LONDON LETTERBOX MARKETING Total 3,004.59 LONDON PENSIONS FUND AUTHORITY OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 75.00 PENSION COSTS 107,066.62 LONDON PENSIONS FUND AUTHORITY Total 107,141.62 LONDON PRINT PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 595.00 LONDON PRINT Total 595.00 LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 24,000.00 LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY Total 24,000.00 LONDON SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 1,000.00 LONDON SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE Total 1,000.00 LONDON UNDERGROUND STAFF MEDICAL INSURANCE & TREATMENT 12,000.00 LONDON UNDERGROUND Total 12,000.00 LONDON WILDLIFE TRUST GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 66,020.00 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 5,000.00 LONDON WILDLIFE TRUST Total 71,020.00 LONDON YOUTH GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 26,000.00 LONDON YOUTH Total 26,000.00 LYNX SECURITY SERVICES AGENCY STAFF 541.88 PRINTING 122.50 SECURITY SERVICES (GUARDS) 6,174.45 LYNX SECURITY SERVICES Total 6,838.83 MACCABI GB GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 10,000.00 MACCABI GB Total 10,000.00 MAE LLP ARCHITECTS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 1,950.00 MAE LLP ARCHITECTS Total 1,950.00 MALCOLM BIRKETT MARKETING DESIGN & ARTWORK 4,950.00 MALCOLM BIRKETT Total 4,950.00 MATCHTECH GROUP PLC AGENCY STAFF 13,081.13 MATCHTECH GROUP PLC Total 13,081.13 MAYOR'S FUND FOR YOUNG MUSICIANS GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 10,000.00 MAYOR'S FUND FOR YOUNG MUSICIANS Total 10,000.00 MBARC LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 12,500.00 MBARC LTD Total 12,500.00 MEDIAEDGE:CIA UK LTD MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 11,851.02 MARKETING DESIGN & ARTWORK 10,650.10 MARKETING SERVICES 19,400.00 MEDIAEDGE:CIA UK LTD Total 41,901.12 MILLER HARE LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 16,600.00 MILLER HARE LTD Total 16,600.00 MISCO COMPUTER HARDWARE 50,104.32 MISCO Total 50,104.32 MITIE T.F. MANAGEMENT LTD BUILDING MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 15,282.59 EVENT MANAGEMENT FEE 85,452.92 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEES -264.00 MITIE T.F. MANAGEMENT LTD Total 100,471.51 MONO EUROPE LTD FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 496.40 MONO EUROPE LTD Total 496.40 MORE LONDON PROPERTY SERVICE CHARGES 77,753.25 MORE LONDON Total 77,753.25 MUSEUM OF LONDON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 50,000.00 MUSEUM OF LONDON Total 50,000.00 MWL MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 540.00 MWL Total 540.00 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 84,000.00 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Total 84,000.00 NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 1,968.78 NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM Total 1,968.78 NEOPOST LTD POSTAGE 1,199.99 NEOPOST LTD Total 1,199.99 NETFORT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 6,870.00 NETFORT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Total 6,870.00 NEWSPAPER LICENSING AGENCY THE CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 42,035.45 CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 830.00 NEWSPAPER LICENSING AGENCY THE Total 42,865.45
Page 277 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total NEXUS SISTEMI CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 6,688.41 NEXUS SISTEMI Total 6,688.41 NORLAND MANAGED SERVICES LIMITED BUILDING MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 218,306.11 CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 1,029.89 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 13,520.69 FIRE AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1,612.00 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 593.45 POSTAGE 28,792.14 NORLAND MANAGED SERVICES LIMITED Total 263,854.28 NORTH ONE TELEVISION LTD MARKETING SERVICES 200,000.00 NORTH ONE TELEVISION LTD Total 200,000.00 NORTHGATE HR LIMITED PAYROLL SERVICES FEES 21,718.31 NORTHGATE HR LIMITED Total 21,718.31 NSA ACADEMY FOR SPORT AND LEISURE GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 478,004.88 NSA ACADEMY FOR SPORT AND LEISURE Total 478,004.88 NURLIANA BAKAR MARKETING DESIGN & ARTWORK 2,000.00 NURLIANA BAKAR Total 2,000.00 OCLC (UK) LTD IT CONSULTANCY 10,500.00 OCLC (UK) LTD Total 10,500.00 OCS CATERING CATERERS SERVICE CHARGES 31,888.55 EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 398.10 OCS CATERING Total 32,286.65 OCS SUPPORT EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 341.66 OFFICE ACCOMMODATION MOVES 297.50 OFFICE CLEANING 92,364.36 OCS SUPPORT Total 93,003.52 OCTAVIAN SECURITY SERVICES (GUARDS) 516.00 OCTAVIAN Total 516.00 OLYMPIC DELIVERY AUTHORITY GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 1,000,000.00 OLYMPIC DELIVERY AUTHORITY Total 1,000,000.00 OPEN KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION LIMITED CHARITABLE DONATIONS 2,000.00 OPEN KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION LIMITED Total 2,000.00 OPM STAFF TRAINING 6,900.00 OPM Total 6,900.00 OSBORNE RICHARDSON AGENCY STAFF 16,902.04 OSBORNE RICHARDSON Total 16,902.04 OUTSTANDING BRANDING MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 874.90 OUTSTANDING BRANDING Total 874.90 OVE ARUP & PARTNERS LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 39,930.00 OVE ARUP & PARTNERS LTD Total 39,930.00 PAMOJA CONSULTING LTD. MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 3,345.70 PAMOJA CONSULTING LTD. Total 3,345.70 PANATHLON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 77,000.00 PANATHLON Total 77,000.00 PARENT FOCUS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 8,122.50 PARENT FOCUS Total 8,122.50 PARK COMMUNICATIONS LTD ADVERTISING 1,195.00 PRINTING 6,289.00 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 2,520.00 PARK COMMUNICATIONS LTD Total 10,004.00 PARK PLAZA COUNTY HALL LONDON LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 1,800.00 PARK PLAZA COUNTY HALL LONDON LTD Total 1,800.00 PARK PLAZA WESTMINSTER BRIDGE LDN MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 641,150.09 PARK PLAZA WESTMINSTER BRIDGE LDN Total 641,150.09 PEARN KANDOLA STAFF TRAINING 10,864.31 PEARN KANDOLA Total 10,864.31 PERTEMPS RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP AGENCY STAFF 9,887.10 PERTEMPS RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP Total 9,887.10 PHS MAXITECH MANAGE IT SERVICES 1,127.00 PHS MAXITECH Total 1,127.00 PIPERS PROJECTS LTD CONFERENCES & SEMINARS 298.00 EVENT MANAGEMENT FEE 2,520.00 EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 1,406.00 PIPERS PROJECTS LTD Total 4,224.00
Page 278 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total PITNEY BOWES LTD EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 565.76 PITNEY BOWES LTD Total 565.76 PORTLAND CUSTOMER SERVICES CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 659.00 PORTLAND CUSTOMER SERVICES Total 659.00 PREMIER PARTNER STAFF TRAINING 650.00 PREMIER PARTNER Total 650.00 PRICEWATERHOUSE OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 4,000.00 PRICEWATERHOUSE Total 4,000.00 PROPAGANDA MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 521.00 PROPAGANDA Total 521.00 PUREPRINT PRINTING 2,478.00 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 6,388.00 STATIONERY 3,224.00 PUREPRINT Total 12,090.00 QUAY OFFICE FURNISHERS LTD EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 44.50 STATIONERY 902.50 QUAY OFFICE FURNISHERS LTD Total 947.00 QUESTMARK LIMITED COMPUTER HARDWARE 2,998.00 QUESTMARK LIMITED Total 2,998.00 R.B KENSINGTON & CHELSEA GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 139,691.44 R.B KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Total 139,691.44 RADIAN6 TECHNOLOGIES UK LIMITED COMPUTER HARDWARE 1,578.00 MANAGE IT SERVICES 2,484.00 RADIAN6 TECHNOLOGIES UK LIMITED Total 4,062.00 RAMIDUS CONSULTING LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 1,750.00 RAMIDUS CONSULTING LIMITED Total 1,750.00 REACH & TEACH GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 47,000.00 REACH & TEACH Total 47,000.00 READING ROOM MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 24,999.00 READING ROOM Total 24,999.00 REED LEARNING STAFF TRAINING 600.00 REED LEARNING Total 600.00 REED SPECIALIST RECRUITMENT LTD AGENCY STAFF 1,885.00 REED SPECIALIST RECRUITMENT LTD Total 1,885.00 RESOLEX (HOLDINGS) LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 27,900.00 RESOLEX (HOLDINGS) LIMITED Total 27,900.00 REUTERS LIMITED DATA PURCHASE 8,601.00 REUTERS LIMITED Total 8,601.00 RICOH UK LTD COMPUTER HARDWARE 10,424.39 RICOH UK LTD Total 10,424.39 ROBIN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,725.00 ROBIN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES Total 4,725.00 ROBSON DOWRY MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 2,291.25 ROBSON DOWRY Total 2,291.25 ROFFEY PARK INSTITUTE LTD STAFF TRAINING 12,248.85 ROFFEY PARK INSTITUTE LTD Total 12,248.85 ROSCOMMON ASSOCIATION LONDON MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1,500.00 ROSCOMMON ASSOCIATION LONDON Total 1,500.00 ROUTES CONSULTING LTD MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 2,058.95 ROUTES CONSULTING LTD Total 2,058.95 RSVP STAFF TRAINING 1,688.75 RSVP Total 1,688.75 RTM LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,998.00 RTM LTD Total 4,998.00 RUGBY FOOTBALL FOUNDATION GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 57,000.00 RUGBY FOOTBALL FOUNDATION Total 57,000.00 RUSHMANS LTD EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 125,468.70 RUSHMANS LTD Total 125,468.70 RUTH KENNEDY LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 4,300.00 RUTH KENNEDY LTD Total 4,300.00 SACRED RIVER T/A SKETCH EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 2,903.25 SACRED RIVER T/A SKETCH Total 2,903.25 SAFETY FIRST AID GROUP LTD EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 527.15 SAFETY FIRST AID GROUP LTD Total 527.15
Page 279 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total SCOTT FLASHMAN MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 2,000.00 SCOTT FLASHMAN Total 2,000.00 SECUREDATA EUROPE LIMITED COMPUTER HARDWARE 49,566.20 SECUREDATA EUROPE LIMITED Total 49,566.20 SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT LTD COMPUTER HARDWARE 5,000.00 SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT LTD Total 5,000.00 SENATOR INTERNATIONAL LTD FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 2,330.33 SENATOR INTERNATIONAL LTD Total 2,330.33 SERVICE DESK INSTITUTE CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 595.00 SERVICE DESK INSTITUTE Total 595.00 SERVOCA SECURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 1,008.00 SECURITY SERVICES (GUARDS) 158,948.48 SERVOCA SECURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED Total 159,956.48 SEYMOUR GREEN MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 12,450.00 SEYMOUR GREEN Total 12,450.00 SHOW & EVENT SECURITY MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 3,320.00 SHOW & EVENT SECURITY Total 3,320.00 SLR CONSULTING LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 40,274.50 SLR CONSULTING LIMITED Total 40,274.50 SMALL GREEN SHOOTS LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 3,000.00 SMALL GREEN SHOOTS LTD Total 3,000.00 SNAP SURVEYS LTD SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 2,997.00 SNAP SURVEYS LTD Total 2,997.00 SOUND & LIGHT PRODUCTIONS EVENT MANAGEMENT FEE 9,746.00 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 37,500.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 9,587.00 SOUND & LIGHT PRODUCTIONS Total 56,833.00 SOUTH EAST FOOD GROUP PARTNERSHIP GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 15,000.00 SOUTH EAST FOOD GROUP PARTNERSHIP Total 15,000.00 SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 244,180.00 SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST Total 244,180.00 SOUTHWARK AGENCY STAFF 10,723.89 SECONDED STAFF - NON GROUP 1,505.12 SOUTHWARK Total 12,229.01 SPEIRS AND MAJOR ASSOCIATES LTD MARKETING SERVICES 10,000.00 SPEIRS AND MAJOR ASSOCIATES LTD Total 10,000.00 SPIRIT DIRECT MAIL LTD MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1,424.50 SPIRIT DIRECT MAIL LTD Total 1,424.50 SPM PRINT PRINTING 4,454.00 SPM PRINT Total 4,454.00 SPOONFED MEDIA LTD MARKETING SERVICES 1,249.50 SPOONFED MEDIA LTD Total 1,249.50 SPORTS NAVIGATION LTD MARKETING SERVICES 60,000.00 SPORTS NAVIGATION LTD Total 60,000.00 ST JOHN AMBULANCE LONDON DISTRICT MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 4,080.00 ST JOHN AMBULANCE LONDON DISTRICT Total 4,080.00 ST VINCENT'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 5,000.00 ST VINCENT'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL Total 5,000.00 STAGECRAFT TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD EQUIPMENT HIRE & RENTAL 954.36 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,000.00 STAGECRAFT TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD Total 3,954.36 STANDARD & POOR'S MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 17,000.00 STANDARD & POOR'S Total 17,000.00 STERIA AGENCY STAFF 3,918.50 STERIA Total 3,918.50 SUE DAVIES MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 15,000.00 SUE DAVIES Total 15,000.00 SUNGARD AVAILABILITY SERVICES LTD MANAGE IT SERVICES 12,733.93 SUNGARD AVAILABILITY SERVICES LTD Total 12,733.93 SUSTAIN GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 244,127.00 SUSTAIN Total 244,127.00 SWETS INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 3,363.64 SWETS INFORMATION SERVICES Total 3,363.64 TATE EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 10,000.00
Page 280 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total TATE Total 10,000.00 THAMES CLIPPERS MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 1,848.67 THAMES CLIPPERS Total 1,848.67 THAMES FESTIVAL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 30,000.00 MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 27,500.00 THAMES FESTIVAL Total 57,500.00 THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED WATER 10,476.67 THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED Total 10,476.67 THE INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 500.00 THE INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES Total 500.00 THE IRISH WORLD MARKETING & ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1,200.00 THE IRISH WORLD Total 1,200.00 THE LONDON IRISH CENTRE MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1,825.00 THE LONDON IRISH CENTRE Total 1,825.00 THE LONDON TIPPERARY ASSOCIATION MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 2,000.00 THE LONDON TIPPERARY ASSOCIATION Total 2,000.00 THE MIND GYM STAFF TRAINING 4,640.00 THE MIND GYM Total 4,640.00 THE OPEN UNIVERSITY STAFF TRAINING 4,912.00 THE OPEN UNIVERSITY Total 4,912.00 THE PEACE ALLIANCE EXTERNAL MEETING ROOM HIRE & EXPENSES 1,000.00 THE PEACE ALLIANCE Total 1,000.00 THE PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 3,758.31 THE PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD Total 3,758.31 THE PRESS ASSOCIATION LTD PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 1,363.21 THE PRESS ASSOCIATION LTD Total 1,363.21 THE PRINCE'S TRUST MARKETING SERVICES 17,000.00 THE PRINCE'S TRUST Total 17,000.00 THE STAIRWAY CONSULTANCY LTD STAFF TRAINING 1,878.00 THE STAIRWAY CONSULTANCY LTD Total 1,878.00 THE STATIONERY OFFICE LTD CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 45.00 PRINTING 8,064.14 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 56.73 THE STATIONERY OFFICE LTD Total 8,165.87 THE STUART LOW TRUST CHARITABLE DONATIONS 500.00 THE STUART LOW TRUST Total 500.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF READING GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 1,000.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF READING Total 1,000.00 THE WHITE WALL COMPANY LTD MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 570.00 THE WHITE WALL COMPANY LTD Total 570.00 THE WILDFOWL & WETLANDS TRUST GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 15,000.00 THE WILDFOWL & WETLANDS TRUST Total 15,000.00 THE WOODLAND TRUST GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 15,000.00 THE WOODLAND TRUST Total 15,000.00 THREE DRAGONS (AG) LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 1,575.00 THREE DRAGONS (AG) LTD Total 1,575.00 THREE HANDS OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES 2,000.00 THREE HANDS Total 2,000.00 TMP (UK) LTD RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING 12,203.19 TMP (UK) LTD Total 12,203.19 TOM CAMPBELL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 10,000.00 TOM CAMPBELL Total 10,000.00 TOYNBEE HALL PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 5,500.00 TOYNBEE HALL Total 5,500.00 TRADE WINDS ADVERTISING 569.00 PRINTING 4,218.00 PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MEDIA RELATIONS 174.00 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 7,422.00 TRADE WINDS Total 12,383.00 TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL RESEARCH LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 1,708.76 TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL RESEARCH LTD Total 1,708.76 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON IT CONSULTANCY 34,012.50 LEGAL FEES 38,523.26 MAINTENANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 48,248.01
Page 281 This report covers the period Period 1 - 3 (01 April to 25 Jun 2011 inclusive) Suppliers with Turnover over £ 500.00
Vendor Name Cost Element Sum of Grand Total TRANSPORT FOR LONDON MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 156,039.78 SECONDED STAFF - NON GROUP 30,787.33 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Total 307,610.88 TSO (USE 10000057) POSTAGE 237.98 PRINTING 327.15 TSO (USE 10000057) Total 565.13 UBIQUS UK MARKETING EXHIBITIONS & EVENTS 560.00 UBIQUS UK Total 560.00 UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 57,394.00 PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 1,275.00 PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY MATERIAL 1,335.00 UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON Total 60,004.00 URBAN BEINGS LIMITED AGENCY STAFF 4,644.45 URBAN BEINGS LIMITED Total 4,644.45 URBAN DESIGN PLUS LIMITED AGENCY STAFF -7,062.27 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 7,020.17 URBAN DESIGN PLUS LIMITED Total -42.10 URBAN PRACTITIONERS MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 9,931.25 URBAN PRACTITIONERS Total 9,931.25 URS CORPORATION LTD MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 30,000.00 URS CORPORATION LTD Total 30,000.00 USER37 LTD MANAGE IT SERVICES 8,400.00 USER37 LTD Total 8,400.00 VEOLIA ES (UK) LIMITED LIFT MAINTENANCE 11,823.36 OFFICE CLEANING 16,022.00 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEES 21,165.00 VEOLIA ES (UK) LIMITED Total 49,010.36 VODAFONE CORPORATE LTD COMPUTER HARDWARE 1,111.48 MOBILE PHONE LINE RENT, CALLS & EQUIPMENT 4,954.00 VODAFONE CORPORATE LTD Total 6,065.48 VOLTERRA CONSULTING LTD AGENCY STAFF 96.00 CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 7,920.00 MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 11,920.00 VOLTERRA CONSULTING LTD Total 19,936.00 WAITE CONSULTANTS (CONTRACTORS) 5,765.73 WAITE Total 5,765.73 WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 4,500.00 WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL Total 4,500.00 WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 116,005.00 WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME Total 116,005.00 WENDELL PARK SCHOOL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1,000.00 WENDELL PARK SCHOOL Total 1,000.00 WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL GRANTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 455,000.00 WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL Total 455,000.00 WHITE LOOP LIMITED MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT CONSULTANCY 2,100.00 WHITE LOOP LIMITED Total 2,100.00 WILLIS CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,704.96 STATUTORY ADVERTISING & NOTIFICATIONS 2,633.79 WILLIS Total 4,338.75 WINKBALL PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO 4,800.00 WINKBALL Total 4,800.00 WORDWAVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED TRANSCRIPTION 4,853.75 WORDWAVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Total 4,853.75 WYG MANAGEMENT SERVICES HEALTH & SAFETY PEST CONTROL 8,206.00 WYG MANAGEMENT SERVICES Total 8,206.00 XMA LIMITED COMPUTER HARDWARE 6,027.26 XMA LIMITED Total 6,027.26 YOUNG FOUNDATION MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 500.00 YOUNG FOUNDATION Total 500.00 Grand Total 15,077,007.58
Page 282