AGENDA

Meeting GLA Oversight Committee Date Wednesday 7 October 2020 Time 11.30 am Place Virtual Meeting Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/oversight

Most meetings of the and its Committees are webcast live at https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/youtube and/or www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings.

Members of the Committee AM (Chair) MBE AM Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman) AM Siân Berry AM Dr AM AM AM AM Peter Whittle AM Joanne McCartney AM

A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat Tuesday 29 September 2020

[Note: This meeting has been called in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. These regulations permit formal London Assembly meetings to be held on a virtual basis, with Assembly Members participating remotely, subject to certain conditions. The regulations apply notwithstanding any other legislation, current or pre-existing Standing Orders or any other rules of the Authority governing Assembly meetings, and remain valid until 7 May 2021. The meeting will be broadcast live via the web-link set out above. The regulations may be viewed here.]

Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, Telephone: 0208 039 1285; Email: [email protected]

For media enquiries please contact Richard Stokoe; Email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report.

v1 2015

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 GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 7 October 2020

1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements

To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.

2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo; [email protected]; 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to:

(a) Note the offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;

(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and

(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).

3 Minutes (Pages 5 - 76)

The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee held on 9 September 2020 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record. The appendices to the minutes are set out on pages 13 to 76 are attached for Members and officers only but are available from the following area of the GLA’s website: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/oversight

3

4 Summary List of Actions (Pages 77 - 226)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo; [email protected]; 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to note the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee and correspondence sent and received.

5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Pages 227 - 266)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo; [email protected]; 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to note the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with Assembly party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to approve and adopt the revised version of Standing Orders, at Appendix 1.

(Appendix 1 to be circulated separately)

(This document can also be downloaded at https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london- assembly/london-assembly-committees/gla-oversight-committee.)

6 Relocation from City Hall (Pages 267 - 268)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Gino Brand; [email protected]; 07511 213765

The Committee is recommended to: (a) Note the report as background to putting questions to invited guests on the proposed relocation of City Hall, and note the subsequent discussion; and (b) Delegate authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output from the discussion at the meeting.

7 Work Programme for the GLA Oversight Committee (Pages 269 - 270)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Gino Brand; [email protected]; 07511 213765

The Committee is recommended to note its work programme for the remainder of 2020.

4

8 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held as a virtual meeting on 3 November 2020 at 10.00am.

9 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent

5

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2

Subject: Declarations of Interests

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 October 2020

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests1;

2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and

2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.

3. Issues for Consideration

3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:

1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v3/2020 Page 1

Member Interest AM OBE AM AM MP Member of Parliament, Orpington; Member, LB Bexley Shaun Bailey AM Siân Berry AM Member, LB Camden Andrew Boff AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Léonie Cooper AM Member, LB Wandsworth Unmesh Desai AM AM Member, City of Westminster AM Len Duvall AM AM MP Member of Parliament, Vauxhall AM Susan Hall AM Member, LB Harrow AM Joanne McCartney AM Deputy Mayor Dr Alison Moore AM Member, LB Barnet Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM AM AM Member, LB Islington Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Peter Whittle AM

[Note: LB - London Borough]

3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:

- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at

(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or

(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions

- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and

- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting

UNLESS

- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).

3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.

Page 2

3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.

3.6 Members are also required, 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 £50 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.

3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting 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: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.

3.8 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 £50, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.

3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager Telephone: 020 8039 1285 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 4 Agenda Item 3

MINUTES

Meeting: GLA Oversight Committee Date: Wednesday 9 September 2020 Time: 11.00 am Place: Virtual Meeting

Copies of the minutes may be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london- assembly/oversight

Present:

Len Duvall AM (Chair) Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman) Andrew Boff AM Unmesh Desai AM Joanne McCartney AM Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Caroline Russell AM Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM

1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)

1.1 The Chair explained that in accordance with Government regulations, the meeting was being held on a hybrid basis, with some Assembly Members present in City Hall and others participating remotely.

1.2 The Clerk read the roll-call of Assembly Members who were participating in the meeting. Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Siân Berry AM, for whom Caroline Russell AM was attending as a substitute, and Peter Whittle AM.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v1 2015 Page 5 GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)

2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of the Secretariat.

2.2 Resolved:

That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.

3 Minutes (Item 3)

3.1 Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee held on 21 July 2020 be signed by the Chair as a correct record

4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)

4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

4.2 The Chair highlighted to the Committee that additional appendices to the agenda item had been circulated to Committee Members in a memo pack, containing correspondence between the Chair and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, and a response to the Stop the Silvertown Tunnel Coalition. The memo pack is attached at Appendix 1.

4.3 Regarding Appendix 15, as set out in the memo pack, the Chair proposed that authority be delegated to himself as Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee, in consultation with party Group Lead Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree a letter to Transport for London (TfL) to request information regarding transparency surrounding the cancellation costs of the Silvertown Tunnel and the financial viability of the project.

Page 6 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

4.4 Resolved: (a) That the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee, and additional correspondence sent and received, be noted; (b) That the additional appendices, as set out in the memo pack, containing correspondence between the Chair and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, and a response to the Stop The Silvertown Tunnel Coalition, be noted; and (c) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree a letter to Transport for London requesting further information regarding the Silvertown Tunnel.

5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Item 5)

5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of the Secretariat.

5.2 Resolved: (a) That the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and the Chairs of Police and Crime Committee, Health Committee and Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee, namely to agree a letter to the Mayor that outlined emergency services work which should be done to prevent any potential disturbances or disorder in London, attached at Appendix 1, be noted; (b) That the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to agree the timetable and proposed draft Work Programme for the London Assembly’s committees and panels for the period September to December 2020, attached at Appendix 2, be noted; (c) That the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the London Assembly, the Deputy Chairman of the GLA Oversight Committee, party Group Leaders and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to agree an initial submission on behalf of the London Assembly to the Mayor in response to the consultation exercise on the proposed relocation of City Hall to The Crystal, attached at Appendix 3, be noted;

Page 7 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

(d) That the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to agree letters to relevant officers detailing the Committee’s response to Agenda Items 9 to 15 of the 21 July 2020 GLA Oversight Committee, attached at Appendices 4-7, be noted; (e) That the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman of the GLA Oversight Committee, namely to agree a spend of up to £15,000 on property advice to the London Assembly, be noted; (f) That the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the London Assembly, the Deputy Chairman of the GLA Oversight Committee, party Group Leaders and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to agree the London Assembly’s submission to the Mayor in response to the consultation exercise on the proposed relocation of City Hall to The Crystal, attached at Appendix 8, be noted; and (g) That the action taken by the Chair of the London Assembly under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman of the London Assembly, party Group Leaders and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to agree the publication of the London Assembly Annual Report, attached at Appendix 9, be noted.

6 COVID -19: Phase 1 and the GLA Staff Response (Item 6)

6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions to invited guests on COVID-19 Phase 1 and the GLA Staff Response.

6.2 The first panel of guests consisted of:  Dr , Deputy Mayor, Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair of the London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group;  John Barradell, Chief Executive of the City of London Corporation and Co-Chair of the Strategic Coordination Group; and  Eleanor Kelly, Chief Executive Southwark Council and Co-Chair of the Strategic Coordination Group.

6.3 A Transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 2.

Page 8 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

6.4 During the course of the discussion, John Barradell, Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group undertook to:  Provide further detail on the partner working arrangements of the Strategic Coordination Group and complexities in managing those arrangements; and  Raise the issue of empty advertising hoarding with sub-regional colleagues and the use of empty space for messaging, on behalf of Andrew Boff AM.

6.5 Dr Fiona Twycross, Deputy Mayor, Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair of the London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group agreed to provide the Committee with the lessons learned for the strategic coordination of COVID-19 and the role and functioning of the London resilience Forum (LRF).

6.6 Eleanor Kelly, Chief Executive Southwark Council and Co-Chair of the Strategic Coordination Group, committed to enquire with London Council’s as to the publication of its review into the lessons learned by London boroughs and formal request it is shared with the Committee.

6.7 The second panel of guests consisted of:  Mary Harpley, Chief Officer, Greater London Authority (GLA);  Niran Mothada, Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, GLA;  Rickardo Hyatt, Interim Deputy Executive Director, Housing and Land, GLA;  Charmaine DeSouza, Assistant Director, Human Resources and Organisational Development, GLA; and  Sarah Mulley, Executive Director of Communities and Intelligence, GLA.

6.8 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 3.

6.9 During the course of the discussion Niran Mothada, Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, undertook to provide details of GLA Staff placed on formal secondment as a result of the GLA COVID-19 response, and provide the lessons learned from the GLA response to COVID-19.

6.10 Mary Harpley, Chief Officer undertook to:  Provide the total numbers of supporting GLA staff and the areas they were working in to assist with COVID-19 response; and  Discuss at a later date ongoing resilience measures and the mobilisation of GLA staff in future crises.

6.11 Sarah Mulley, Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence agreed to confirm whether any further expense was incurred to procure the services of a specialist organisation to manage the in-kind donation strand of the COVID-19 response.

Page 9 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

6.12 The Committee requested a report on the numbers of people supported by GLA Staff from rough sleeping into accommodation.

6.13 Resolved: (a) That the report, and the report of the Chief Officer as attached at Appendix 1, and the subsequent discussion, be noted; and (b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output arising from the meeting.

7 GLA Pay Award (Item 7)

7.1 The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer.

7.2 The Chief Officer introduced the report and explained that the counter-offer to Unison’s pay claim had been updated since the publication of the report, and now proposed extending the 2% pay increase to include Grades 1-7 as opposed to only Grades 1-6.

7.3 The Committee queried whether the GLA could afford a 2% pay increase for Grades 1-7 considering the budgetary pressures on the GLA. The Chief Officer confirmed that the money required would be found in other areas and budgeted for.

7.4 On the premise that the GLA could afford a 2% pay increase for Grades 1-7, the Committee asked whether a guarantee could be given that when future budgetary savings were made there would be no redundancies. The Chief Officer responded that no guarantee could be made. The Committee commented that consideration should be given to future redundancies that may be required and whether that would be preferable to avoid as opposed to a 2% pay increase.

7.5 The Committee questioned whether consideration had been given to the erosion of salaries for Grades 7 and above over 2018-2019. The Assistant Director for Human Resources and Organisational Development responded that consideration had been given. Grades 7 and above had received a 2% uplift in 2019, and effort had been made in previous years to maintain the salaries of those grades. For 2020, the average salary for public sector workers in London had been evaluated, resulting in the extended offer of a 2% pay increase for Grade 7.

7.6 The Committee commented that it was not ideal to be considering the pay award when Unison had not yet formally considered and responded to the new proposal from the Chief Officer and also noted that Unison had requested that a working group looking at pay be established. The Committee requested confirmation of the outcome of the pay award and negotiations with Unison and the implementation of a working group.

Page 10 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

7.7 The Committee noted that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) staff were entitled to 32.5 days of annual leave which was 2 more days than GLA Staff and raised concerns of consistency across the GLA Group. The Committee commented that non- monetary ways to value staff needed to be considered and that the Unison request for Christmas Eve to be given as a holiday was modest.

7.8 The Committee expressed regret at the current financial circumstances and discomfort in not following national pay bargaining, but accepted it was likely unaffordable at this time.

7.9 Resolved:

That the Committee respond to the Chief Officer, and that the considerations set out in the report be noted.

8 Business Support Functions in the Chief Officer's Directorate and the Mayor's Office Directorate - Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment (Item 8)

8.1 The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer.

8.2 The Committee raised concerns with GLA Senior Staff and Mayoral Staff sharing business support staff, highlighting potential issues with confidentially, the separation of London Assembly and Mayoral business and competing demands on staff. The Committee queried whether consideration had been given to streamlining the business support staff structure in the Mayor’s office in line with the structure for GLA Senior Staff.

8.3 The Chief Officer responded that consideration had been given to GLA business support staff structures in developing the proposal but highlighted that there were issues with the current structure for GLA Senior Staff, particularly with resilience and providing cover. The Chief Officer accepted the concerns raised by the Committee and said that consideration would be given to which staff specifically supported which officers, and that further thought would be given to safeguard against the issues raised.

8.4 The Committee reiterated its concerns and highlighted the dangers in merging the business support staff restructure for Senior GLA with Mayoral staff and suggested consideration again be given in keeping the structure separate for Senior GLA and Mayoral staff.

Page 11 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Wednesday 9 September 2020

8.5 Resolved:

That the Committee respond to the Head of Paid Service consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the business support functions of Corporate Management Team (CMT) Support, in the Chief Officer’s Directorate, and the Deputy Mayor Support and Private Office and Correspondence teams, in the Mayor’s Office directorate.

9 Date of Next Meeting (Item 9)

9.1 The next meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee was scheduled to be held on Tuesday 3 November 2020 at 10am.

10 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 10)

10.1 There were no items of urgent business.

11 Close of Meeting

11.1 The meeting ended at 1.43pm.

Chair Date

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, Telephone: 0208 039 1285; Email: [email protected]

Page 12 Appendix 1

Memo

Date: 4 September 2020

To: Assembly Members cc: Heads of Group Offices, Mark Morris, Heather Alexander, Mark Quinlan, Rebecca Arnold, Ed Williams

Dear Assembly Member

Subject: Agenda for GLA Oversight Committee Meeting – 9 September 2020 – Additional Appendices to Agenda Item 4

Please find attached additional appendices to Agenda Item 4, namely: • Correspondence between the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff regarding the London Assembly’s Budget (pages 1 to 29). • Correspondence sent to the Stop the Silvertown Tunnel Coalition (page 31)

These appendices are being circulated to you separately from the Agenda following agreement from the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee.

Davena Toyinbo Principal Committee Manager 07521 266519

Page 13

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 Agenda Item 4 Appendix 8 Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA David Bellamy Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Minicom: 020 7983 4458 Chief of Staff Web: www.london.gov.uk (Mayor’s Office)

Sent via email 22 June 2020

Dear David,

Greater London Authority (GLA) and GLA Group Budget

Thank you for briefing lead Assembly Members on the budget pressures facing the GLA and GLA Group at our meeting on 19 June.

We noted that the Mayor’s budget guidance is due to be issued by the end of this month, which will provide further, necessary detailed information.

However, in advance of that, and following discussion with Group Leaders, the Chair and Deputy Chairman, I write to ask:

1) For the Mayor/GLA budget, will you be treating efficiency savings as counting towards the overall savings targets? Or will only net reductions in spend and budgets be counted as savings for these purposes?

2) What GLA functions and business units are you ring-fencing, in terms of protection (in full and/or in part) from savings requirements, as it stands today? Or are all units and functions under consideration?

3) How is committed expenditure being treated? Will it be excluded from savings targets? What would be included as committed? Would this be contractually committed or publicly committed?

4) In the budget guidance document, how will you show that you have taken proper account of the London Assembly’s statutory role and functions, given that it is not another department of the GLA and should not, therefore, be treated as such?

Page 115 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

I would ask that the answers to these questions are then reflected within a revised approach, with revised savings targets, for the London Assembly’s component budget. The approach needs to take full account of the relative size and distinct nature of the Assembly’s budget (direct costs only) as compared to the size and nature of all other component budgets within the GLA Group.

Finally, and further to the commitment made at MQT on 18 June, can you please provide the Chairman of the Assembly’s Budget & Performance Committee an advance copy of the budget guidance document at the earliest possible opportunity this week?

I would be grateful for a response by Friday 26 June. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

Yours sincerely

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

PagePage 16 2 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected] Appendix 9

Len Duvall, AM Our ref: Chair of GLA Oversight Committee City Hall Date: 26th June 2020

By email

Dear Len

Thank you for your letter of 22 June. First, let me answer your four questions in turn:

1. Savings targets across the GLA Group can be met through a combination of savings (stopping an activity) or net efficiencies (performing the activity more cheaply). Net efficiencies can also be achieved by holding expenditure constant but securing additional offsetting income. These definitions are used in all components of the GLA Group budget.

2. We are not ring-fencing any GLA functions and business units, unless funded externally in which case repurposing may be explored if permitted by the funding agreement. All GLA:Mayor budgets are being reviewed, though of course the elections budget is a matter for the Greater London Returning Officer and not the Mayor.

3. The approach being taken for the GLA:Mayor budget is that where expenditure is contractually committed then it will proceed, unless there is a break clause in which case it will be reviewed as appropriate. Publicly announced but not contractually committed expenditure is being reviewed alongside other unconfirmed plans. Savings targets are not currently being applied at function or business unit-level; instead all budget lines are being reviewed to identify potential savings and efficiencies. This approach is particularly appropriate in an environment where some previously-planned activities are no longer possible on public health grounds, and others have increased importance.

4. The budget guidance is clear that the Assembly’s statutory functions must be prioritised, and the Mayor reaffirmed this in his accompanying letter to the Chair of the Assembly. The separate Assembly component budget and the statutory process for its production fully recognises the need for it to be developed in a distinct way. In the circumstances, the extent of funding necessary to efficiently deliver the Assembly’s statutory functions, and appropriate funding for any discretionary activities, will be determined through the budget process. Clearly appropriate information will need to be produced in order that the Mayor and Assembly Members can form judgements as the budget process proceeds.

The approach taken to set savings targets reflected the above points, the discussion at our meeting on 19 June and the other factors set out in the budget guidance document. All savings targets were set with regret and it is recognised that they will be challenging for all

Page 317 organisations; but in the current absence of Government support, we have no choice but to proceed accordingly.

For the reasons set out in the budget guidance, savings targets will need to be kept under review throughout the budget process. I think it is accurate to note that the Mayor currently has access to less detailed information regarding the Assembly component budget than all others. Therefore, my hope is that I can work closely with you, other party group leaders and senior Assembly officers so that ultimately the 26 Members of the Authority can, in the circumstances, set the best possible budget for the people of London.

Finally, I can confirm that the budget guidance document was provided to the Chairman of the Assembly’s Budget and Performance Committee this morning, an hour ahead of publication and following its approval by the Mayor the previous evening. Substantive changes were being made until shortly before it was submitted to the Mayor, so it was not possible to previously share an earlier draft.

I hope the above information is helpful to you and colleagues.

Yours sincerely,

David Bellamy Chief of Staff

PagePage 18 4

Appendix 10

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA David Bellamy Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Minicom: 020 7983 4458 Chief of Staff Web: www.london.gov.uk (Mayor’s Office)

Sent via email 2 July 2020

Dear David,

Greater London Authority (GLA) and GLA Group Budget

Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2020.

I can confirm that senior Secretariat managers have already undertaken an initial, detailed review of all Assembly budgets, to establish the level of potential savings that could be made without impacting on services or structures. The outcome of this exercise will be discussed with leading Assembly Members.

The Executive Director has, at the same time, asked all budget holders to undertake appropriate internal exercises to exemplify a comprehensive range of scenarios, which include the assessment of significant potential financial reductions across all of the Assembly’s budgets. This exercise will be completed in the summer, in order to provide a basis for discussion with, and decisions by, Members.

In the meantime, I do have some further questions on the Assembly budget arising from your letter, namely:

1) Rather than presenting savings as a proportion of discretionary mayoral funding, can you please set out the savings target for the Assembly, and then for each body in the GLA Group, as a percentage of the expected total spend in the 2020-21 year.

2) The line in your letter that “Savings targets are not currently being applied at function or business unit-level; instead all budget lines are being reviewed to identify potential savings and efficiencies” is noted. What account is being taken in this activity of the increases to GLA Directorate budgets and staffing numbers since May 2016? It is clearly the case that some parts of the GLA have grown significantly in recent years (including in areas which have not seen devolution of powers and responsibilities from Government) with many millions of pounds of additional funding being applied to these areas and the introduction of hundreds of additional members of staff, whilst other areas, including the Assembly, have seen only very small increases. Is it the case

Page 519 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

that you are not reviewing budgets in a phased way, starting with those areas that have grown substantially since 2016, but are instead treating all budget lines in exactly the same way, regardless of the context or their relative scale? If so, can you explain why?

3) In the Mayor’s letter to the Chair of the Assembly on 26 June, he said: “If the Assembly were not to prioritise in-year savings, this would compound the scale of reductions that you would be required to make in 2021-22 and so I would strongly urge you to take immediate action to develop and implement savings options now. These in-year savings will need to be set out in regular reporting and as an input to next year’s budget development. This approach means I will not need to formally reduce your 2020-21 Budget, with underspends this year being used in 2021-22 to repay the over- provision of tax income by the 33 billing authorities in 2020-21.” Could you please clarify precisely what is being suggested here in relation to the projected savings targets for the Assembly in this current year and next year, as set out in Mayor’s budget guidance.

4) On the comment in your letter, “I think it is accurate to note that the Mayor currently has access to less detailed information regarding the Assembly component budget than all others”, and noting that the London Assembly, unlike other bodies, considers its detailed budget submission report in public, we would be happy to adopt an ‘open book’ approach, as long as the Mayor is happy to adopt an ‘open book’ approach with us. For example, the savings requirements for the GLA Group and London Assembly that appeared in the final Budget Guidance document were higher than those originally quoted to lead Assembly Members. Can we please see all of the detailed workings and information, including the data coming in from London boroughs on income and receipts, that were used to develop the initial estimates of the funding shortfall for the GLA Group and then the different iterations of the guidance and supporting documents, showing how and why those estimates and savings targets were changed? As I say, if the Mayor is happy to share all of the details underpinning his draft and actual budget documents, throughout this process, we would be happy to mirror that approach.

I would be grateful for an urgent response to these questions by no later than 10am on Tuesday 7 July 2020. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

Finally, the Assembly’s Budget & Performance Committee will, as you know, have questions for the Mayor relating to the budget proposals for the GLA Group. The Chair of the Assembly is also writing to Mary, separately, with questions relating to the proposals for the move to the Crystal building.

PagePage 20 6 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

Yours sincerely

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Page 721 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

PagePage 22 8 Appendix 11

Len Duvall, AM Our ref: Chair of GLA Oversight Committee City Hall Date: 7th July 2020

Dear Len

Thank you for your letter of 2 July. Before I address each of your points in turn, first can I say that I am not seeking to be adversarial in my response, but I do feel I should give open and honest replies. My strong desire is to work collaboratively to address the serious challenge we all face.

1. I am entirely satisfied that the presentation of savings targets as a proportion of the council tax and business rates income previously expected is appropriate, for two reasons. First, it is the expected loss of council tax and business rates that causes the targets to be necessary. Second, expenditure funded from other sources is immaterial to the challenge we face as it cannot be cut or repurposed.

To take the most obvious example: the GLA: Mayor budget contains the £311m Adult Education Budget. This is ring-fenced and it is not feasible to make cuts to it in order to free-up money for the Assembly or any other expenditure. Any presentation of figures that implies this is possible (for any ring-fenced funds) would be preposterous and of no purpose to assessing the appropriateness or achievability of the savings targets.

It is fair to say, as I have previously accepted, that the GLA: Mayor budget has more flexibility given its relative size – however, that is offset by the number of fixed costs it contains, such as City Hall rent and running costs, IT costs such as Microsoft licences and the elections budget, which is rightly outside the control of the Mayor. Despite this, and the recommendation of the Budget & Performance Committee in January that savings targets be set equally across the GLA, the Budget Guidance proposes targets for the Assembly that are proportionately at least 20 per cent lower than for GLA: Mayor.

2. The scale of the savings that we are required to make means I regard all budget items as open for review – whether over recent years they have increased, decreased or stayed constant is not relevant (noting that increases in expenditure are often the consequence of underfunding by the previous Mayor, for example on the

Page 923

environment and air quality). Significant effort has already been expended by myself, the Chief Officer, Executive Directors, Assistant Directors and the Finance team in recent weeks to conduct line-by-line reviews of all programme budgets to identify potential in-year savings. We are now moving on to look at staffing budgets, with the aim of publishing a revised GLA: Mayor budget for 2020-21 before the end of July.

Then in August we will begin a full review of the GLA: Mayor budget for 2021-22 ahead of consultation with the Assembly in November. This will take advantage of recurring savings previously identified, anticipated lower levels of contractual commitments compared to the in-year review, work being commissioned by the Group Collaboration Board and the new priorities identified by the London Recovery Board as it takes forward its work.

3. Apologies if I didn’t explain this clearly in my previous letter. The GLA Act provides the Mayor with the power to amend funding allocations in-year in the event of an emergency or disaster. So hypothetically, the Mayor could reduce the Assembly’s budget this year by an amount equal to a savings target he set. Given the uncertainty inherent in economic forecasts and whether the Government will provide further support, which combine to make the required savings target currently uncertain, at this stage the Mayor proposes to not do this.

Instead, the Assembly budget (and others) for 2020-21 should be delivered on the basis of an amount equivalent to the eventual confirmed savings target being underspent in year. This underspend can then be used to offset the lower level of funding that will be available because the Mayor has to repay billing authorities the excess tax income they provided in 2020-21 (on which forecasts our budgets were, as required by law, originally based).

4. I fully accept that the Assembly publishes its budget submission ahead of submitting it to the Mayor. However, given that at the October 2019 GLA Oversight Committee meeting there was absolutely no discussion on this item, I can only assume that in fact it is considered and informally agreed in private, with the committee meeting a rubber stamp.

This contrasts with the GLA:Mayor budget, and those of the functional bodies, where detailed public sessions are rightly held by the Budget & Performance Committee to scrutinise the proposals therein, ahead of the Mayor preparing his draft consolidated budget. Of course, each organisation has different governance procedures, but it is not accurate to imply that the Assembly is unique in considering its budget in public – see for example the LLDC Board and TfL Finance Committee.

My statement about my having less information on the Assembly budget than others was founded on three points. First, the Assembly budget document does not provide a break down on any specific programme budgets (for example, how precisely is the £1.446m allocated to ‘Scrutiny’ spent), compared to the GLA: Mayor budget which provides detailed tables of all programme spend within each Unit (see Appendix 2 of the draft budget submission).

Page 1024

As you know, I have always welcomed proposals from the Assembly on how to improve GLA:Mayor budget documentation, and repeat this again, even though at 68 pages last year I fear the document is approaching the point where it provides more detail than may actually be considered by the reader.

Second, as noted above there is no public scrutiny of the Assembly budget that I can refer to.

Third, for the GLA:Mayor detailed decision forms are published in an online database, enabling the reader to understand how the budget is being used and the objectives intended to be achieved. In contrast, I can find no public decision form for the Oversight Committee’s decision to spend £250,000 from reserves on marketing promotion of the London Assembly, a decision followed just months later by a request for the Mayor to increase the Assembly’s budget in order that, in part, it could put £150,000 into reserves.

On your specific request, I have checked with David Gallie and he would be happy to take you through the detailed calculations behind our assessment of the GLA Group savings target, and the earlier iterations thereof (which, contrary to what you say in your letter, were initially for a higher worst case scenario: £650m rather than £493m). He, the Mayor and I look forward to giving public evidence about this to the Budget & Performance Committee on 7 July.

The London Assembly savings target was my recommendation to the Mayor, based on his direction to protect police and fire funding as much as possible, take a proportionate approach to TfL given the need for Government funding, and using my knowledge of other organisations’ budgets to set targets that were as fair as possible at this stage of the process. I had a working spreadsheet to create it, with the figures it shows being incorporated directly into the Budget Guidance (but I am happy to share if you want to see it).

This really brings us to the heart of the matter: the view expressed by Assembly Members at Bureau of Leaders on 2 July that the savings targets set for the London Assembly are unreasonable. In reply, I make two points.

First, that genuinely they were an attempt to meet a very difficult situation as fairly as possible, given the information available to me. I did listen to and reflect on the points previously made by Assembly Members. Indeed the Assembly’s worst-case scenario savings target is 29% lower than I advised Bureau of Leaders on 19 June was likely if I took the proportionate approach to savings recommended by the Budget & Performance Committee in January 2020 (again, this is contrary to the assertion in your letter that the target had been increased – I have a copy of the script I prepared to explain the situation to members at the 19 June meeting if this would be useful to you).

Second, these targets will be kept under review throughout the budget process based on the latest evidence available to the Mayor, including proper consideration of the

Page 1125

Government’s announcement last week. If that evidence shows that the Assembly’s savings target is too high and it would be in the best interests of Londoners for some of it to be assigned to another organisation, then I can assure you I will make that recommendation to the Mayor and I know he will consider it with an open mind.

The question, therefore, is how best to provide that evidence. I repeat my offer to work closely with you, other party group leaders and senior Assembly officers so that ultimately the 26 Members of the Authority can, in the circumstances, set the best possible budget for the people of London. I would be pleased to discuss this directly with you.

Yours sincerely,

David Bellamy Chief of Staff

Page 1226

Appendix 12 Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA David Bellamy Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Minicom: 020 7983 4458 Chief of Staff Web: www.london.gov.uk (Mayor’s Office)

Sent via email 14 July 2020

Dear David,

Greater London Authority (GLA) and GLA Group Budget

The Committee would like to thank you for your letter of 7 July. Members are also grateful for your attendance at Budget & Performance Committee on that same day.

You are right to emphasise the importance of direct and open communication during this challenging budget process. That is exactly what the Assembly is seeking to do in raising its concerns on two particular topics which have arisen from that process already: the equity of the budget savings targets for the Assembly as against those for the rest of the Group, and the business planning assumptions underlying the proposed move from City Hall to the Crystal.

The numbering of the points in this letter follow those of your letter of 7 July.

1. None of us dispute how the budget is put together in terms of income from council tax and business rates, among other factors. Surely, though, the critical issue is the degree of capacity within the various budgets in the Group to make savings, while protecting the statutory roles of the bodies concerned.

If you wish to make a fair comparison between the relative capacity of the GLA:Mayor and GLA:Assembly component budgets to make savings, something which we encourage you to do, then a number of other factors need to be considered which did not form a part of your letter: • The Adult Education Budget (AEB) is unique in terms of the nature of that arrangement with national government and the quantum of the ring-fenced funds involved. If you would like to make a case for excluding that arrangement and other arrangements involving ring-fenced funds from a comparison of spend, then we would like to see a list of all such items so that we can discuss these with you and then form a reasonable view of the proportion they represent of the GLA:Mayor component budget. • The Mayor mentioned in his all-staff briefing (dated 9 July) that roughly 90 per cent of the new staff who have joined the GLA since May 2016 are either completely or part- funded by external funding. It stands to reason that this may mean that 90 per cent of new establishment staff since May 2016 are therefore out of the scope of any savings

Page 1327 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

which need to be made through staff redundancies. The logic follows that directorates who have not benefited from these staff rises, including the Assembly Secretariat, may be disproportionately affected by any staff redundancies. • We agree with you that there should be no question of cutting back on environmental programmes however going beyond those ring-fenced funds, there is a good proportion of the GLA:Mayor component budget which is genuinely discretionary in the sense that it is enabled by statute but not required by it. The Mayor is required to set certain strategies but it was envisaged at the establishment of the GLA that those strategies would be implemented by resources deployed by a range of interested bodies in the capital. This significant level of discretionary spend should be a significant factor in any comparison between the two GLA component budgets. • You mention the support service costs falling on the GLA:Mayor component budget and provide some examples of those costs. However, you do not acknowledge that further savings arising from shared services for GLA support functions, which you have rightly told us you are seeking to achieve, would accrue to the GLA:Mayor component budget. • Why have you quoted City Hall rent as a fixed cost for the GLA:Mayor component. The current consultation process on the proposed move to the Crystal would seem to indicate that it is in fact not a fixed cost. • There are financing flexibilities which are available to the GLA:Mayor component which are simply not available to the GLA:Assembly component. They have been used extensively over recent years and include, for example, a far more extensive access to reserves and substantial income from interest receipts, running into tens of millions of pounds (thus dwarfing any flexibilities which the Assembly might have). Has this been considered in setting the savings allocations? • You do not acknowledge the nature of the Assembly budget. Not only is it salary dominated, but its grade profile is noticeably lower than those of the other GLA directorates. This provides markedly fewer opportunities for savings and those opportunities which it does provide would mean a reduction in staffing levels, many of these are lower paid than those that directly serve the Mayor. How have you taken this into consideration? • The statutory role of the Assembly also needs to be considered. While the Assembly is based in the GLA, it is required – quite rightly – to look across the entire Group in carrying out its scrutiny work. Deploying narrow, GLA-focused arguments about the Assembly budget do not do justice to its Group-wide role, which includes two statutory committees – one for police and one for fire. • Similarly, while there is no doubt that the Group is facing substantial budget pressures, it has never been widely accepted that the Assembly budget simply mimics the rest of the Group in either good times or bad. The Assembly budget forms a miniscule proportion of the Group budget and covers a core staffing complement, crucial to adequate scrutiny. It will not have dramatic swings upwards or downwards. The Assembly simply needs to be adequately resourced to carry out its statutory scrutiny function, in the way that the parliamentary select committees are. • All three Mayors have rightly been very cautious in seeking to limit the resources provided to the body charged with scrutiny oversight of the Mayoralty. That approach should continue. It is reasonable for the Mayor to ask the Assembly to look for savings but it is also reasonable for the Assembly to expect to be given a fair hearing on what can be achieved while protecting its ability to carry out its statutory role.

Page 1428 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

2. I agree that all budget lines should be challenged. That is exactly the approach being adopted by the Assembly for its own budget and it is reassuring to hear that the rest of the GLA is no different in that regard. It should however be recognised that the GLA has had significant cost increases since 2016 and the Assembly has been asked to scrutinise a larger Mayoralty with significantly increased powers (e.g. AEB) without significantly increased funds. I look forward to looking at the results of the GLA-wide process for 2020-21 later this month and for 2021- 22 in November. The Assembly will be looking carefully to see exactly what the impacts are on the GLA:Mayor component budget for those two financial years, both in programme and staffing terms and how that compares with the impacts on the functional bodies and the Assembly.

3. You omit to acknowledge that the Mayor cannot amend in-years budgets without the involvement of the Assembly. This is an important safeguard.

Given the Assembly’s statutory role in Group budget setting, we would be grateful if you could share the legal advice you have sought on the approach being adopted for 2020-21, making clear the date and source of that advice. The specific issue of concern for us is the expectation that a budget other than that which was set through the statutory process should be followed and on what basis this is being done.

Thinking more deeply about the approach being adopted, we need to consider the following points: • The approach to in-year savings for 2020-21 may prove to be premature. • A financial planning horizon beyond 2020-21 and 2021-22 is required. • We shall not know until January 2021 the extent of the deficit on council tax and business rates. • There is an existing safety net for business rates. • There will be opportunities to smooth council tax and business rates deficits over the coming financial years. • The MHCLG funding package, announced on 2 July, needs to be factored into the approach. • It is right to assert that the use of reserves is a one-off measure but reserves can be replenished in better times. • Great care should be taken with any proposals which involve or necessitate redundancies in any part of the GLA, as: ▪ London’s city-wide government will still require the capacity to deliver and to be transparent in doing that. ▪ There is a danger in losing corporate memory. ▪ Were it become necessary to re-hire in future years following premature redundancies, then that would represent hugely wasted effort and resource, which would impact smaller teams and directorates to a greater extent.

4. As noted above, the Mayoralty needs to be very careful when involving itself in the Assembly budget. This is no different from national government not setting the budget for parliament. There does need to be a separation of duties. This is why the allocation of the Assembly budget is a matter in law only for the Assembly.

Page 1529 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

It does seem somewhat perplexing that you are not only seeking to involve yourself in the detail of the Assembly’s budget but are also seeking to comment on the proceedings of the Assembly’s GLA Oversight Committee. The equivalent, I suppose, would be for the DfT interfering in the business of the Transport Select Committee.or the Assembly to seek to comment on the time allocated to agenda items at the GLA’s Corporate Investment Board (CIB) which you chair; information which is not available in the published minutes. Whether or not this would be desirable, it is not possible as – unlike the GLA Oversight Committee – CIB does not meet in public.

Furthermore, it seems odd that the Assembly budget appears to you to lack transparency. It is a salary dominated budget. Details of GLA staffing levels are widely available. It really is not difficult to ascertain details of the Assembly’s expenditure patterns through the quarterly reporting process.

The Assembly budget was deliberately defined in statute so that it only contained direct costs attributable solely to the Assembly. This in itself provides a high degree of transparency for a small budget. It would be helpful if you could set out what additional public scrutiny of the Assembly budget you expect to see.

The GLA Oversight Committee sets the Assembly budget and so could not undertake this public scrutiny role. It would seem odd for another Assembly committee, such as the Budget & Performance Committee to seek to fulfil that role given its rather obvious conflict of interest.

I am not aware that, for example, the Public Accounts Committee seeks to scrutinise parliament’s budget. Even more importantly, nor I am aware that national government seeks to scrutinise parliament’s budget.

I understand that you have already discussed the Assembly’s recording of its decisions with the Executive Director of Secretariat, who has explained to you that, just as with Mayoral decisions, deferral of publication is sometimes required. Again, just as with Mayoral decisions, all Assembly decisions are published at the appropriate time. This is the case with the £250,000 investment in the promotion of the Assembly’s work and role to which you refer. It constitutes a much smaller amount than is routinely spent on Mayoral marketing. I would also reiterate that the Assembly’s allocation of its own budget is a matter in law for the Assembly.

On the use of the Assembly’s reserves, to which you refer, that too is a matter reserved in law to the Assembly. The Assembly’s approach has been – within the context of a small budget – to maintain adequate levels of reserves to meet its commitments in the short to medium term without being seen to stockpile unnecessary levels of funds, given that, while they are marginal in the context of the Group budget, they could be utilised elsewhere in the GLA.

In the context of reserves, I would like to emphasise that the Assembly, with your support, effectively froze its budget for 2019-20 by meeting its growth items totalling £0.2m entirely from its reserves. This seemed entirely sensible to all of us at the time and it seems surprising that you have chosen to raise the issue of Assembly reserves given this recent history.

Page 1630 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

The Assembly is happy to be held accountable for that to the public through its (very minor) call on the council tax precept, as envisaged by the GLA Act. It would not seem to be a natural part of your role to involve yourself in the detail of Assembly budget allocations. Given that your work is being scrutinised by the Assembly, this would seem to be and inappropriate reversal of roles. In purely budget terms, I imagine that your Group-wide role would mean that you have more pressing priorities.

On the offers you kindly make, I would be grateful if David Gallie could brief Gino Brand on the detailed calculations you used to set savings targets across the Group and, as part of that briefing, for the spreadsheet you used for that purpose to be provided to Gino, along with the script you prepared for the 19 June meeting of the Bureau of Leaders. In addition, it would be helpful if David could talk Gino through the current business rates safety net. The overall purpose of this briefing would not be to check the arithmetic but to understand the rationale behind the savings targets better.

May I finish by making two points.

Firstly, I would of course welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further with you, along with other Assembly colleagues. It would be good to focus on those areas which are being protected from budget reductions, both in the GLA and across the Group, and the reasons for that. I am sure you will agree that there is a danger of blanket statements being made about protecting frontline work, when in fact that work covers a wide range of activities; some of which would not be widely accepted as frontline. They therefore need to be probed during the budget setting process.

Secondly, you say in your letter that, if it transpires that the Assembly savings targets are too high, then part of those targets could be reassigned to another part of the Group. You will know that the small size of the Assembly budget means that its entire savings targets are quickly lost in the roundings in Group budget terms which would render such an exercise meaningless before it even began.

You write about getting to the heart of the matter. Surely the heart of this particular matter is that the Mayoralty runs the risk of pursuing savings from the body which exercises scrutiny oversight of it in a manner which, far from being equitable, might end up being viewed as unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate and, as such, would be challengeable.

I would be grateful for an urgent response to these questions by no later than 10am on Friday 17 July 2020. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

Yours sincerely

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Page 1731 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 1832 Appendix 13

Len Duvall, AM Our ref: Chair of GLA Oversight Committee City Hall Date: 7th August 2020

Dear Len

I write in reply to your letter dated 14 July on behalf of the GLA Oversight Committee. I am sorry I could not reply by your proposed deadline, but this does give me the opportunity to respond to a couple of points raised in Thursday’s Bureau of Leaders meeting.

First, you asked how Assembly Members’ salaries were considered in setting the proposed control totals and savings targets. It is absolutely recognised that Assembly Member salaries are essentially a fixed cost (subject of course to the annual decision regarding cost of living increases), just as there are a great many fixed costs in the GLA: Mayor budget, some examples of which I set out in my previous letter. The figures provided in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance are just that – guidance. They were produced on the basis set out in my previous letter and as is always the case, are intended to support and guide, not replace, the normal budget setting process.

Second, I want to repeat what I said at the meeting that anyone who states there will be no redundancies arising from the reductions to the GLA: Mayor budget is wrong. Sadly, there will clearly need to be redundancies this financial year in order to make next year’s GLA: Mayor budget deliverable, and I anticipate that some will contribute towards the staffing savings that have to be achieved this financial year under the GLA: Mayor repurposed budget.

Third, to respond to suggestions from some members that they are confused about the way forward. It is true that there is uncertainty as to the tax income we will receive this year and next, which is why the budget guidance sets out three possible scenarios, of which scenario 3 is viewed as the most likely. In response to this, the Assembly should work towards producing an appropriate budget for 2021/22 that meets this scenario. The Mayor can then formally consult with the Assembly on this budget in the usual way, in line with the statutory process. If such a budget should genuinely be incompatible with the Assembly’s statutory responsibilities, then full evidence for this should be provided in order that the Mayor can consider this. Should changing circumstances mean that scenario 3 is not the best basis on which to proceed, David Gallie or I will advise you as quickly as possible.

Fourth, regarding this year’s Assembly savings target. I can confirm that the Mayor has signed MD2666 which sets out the repurposed GLA: Mayor budget and may already have been published by the time you receive this letter. To provide immediate certainty to the Assembly, the Mayor has taken the formal decision via MD2666 that half the Assembly’s ‘scenario 3’

Page 1933 savings target should be met either from future years’ income (given the measures announced by MHCLG on 2 July) or from the GLA Group business rates reserve. This reduces your savings target for this financial year to £450,000.

As we discussed, there is no change to the overall 2020/21 budget totals. This means that the Assembly can decide whether or not to deliver your in-year savings target. However, any savings that are not delivered this year will lead to a corresponding increased pressure in the Assembly’s budget next year. Given how challenging next year’s budget looks set to be, I would strongly recommend (as I am to all GLA Group organisations) that this year’s savings target be delivered.

I turn now to your letter. For ease, I will use the same numbering as our correspondence to date.

On the first point, I will take each of your bullet points in turn:

• The Adult Education Budget is unusual in being a delegation from a Government minister, and unique in its quantum, but entirely normal in that the funds provided cannot be reallocated to other matters. To be clear, third parties provide money to deliver particular projects or outcomes; such funding or underspends on these activities cannot be spent elsewhere. I’m happy to ask officers to prepare a list of such items if you want, but it is immaterial to your point as they cannot be spent elsewhere.

• The workforce report recently provided to the committee shows that 67 per cent of the GLA: Mayor staffing growth since March 2016 has been funded by third parties (in fact it is probably slightly higher than this as third party funding pays for some of the additional IT and HR staff that have been required). Funding from savings and efficiencies delivered by the Mayor (including interest received, as you note) has supported roles to undertake additional GLA activities. I think 90 per cent is a reasonable estimate for this, with the remaining posts funded through money that was previously spent with external organisations.

• I did not say that there should be “no question of cutting back on environmental programmes”; I merely commented that under the previous Mayor, the GLA did not in my view (and that of the Mayor) have sufficient staff in this area. Given the scale of cuts to the GLA: Mayor budget, it seems inevitable that there will be some reductions to environmental programmes, no matter how much the committee and the Mayor may wish this not to be the case. Indeed, I wrote that “I regard all budget items as open to review.”

• I note that benefits from the secretariat shared service do in part accrue to the Assembly budget, and there may be others I am not immediately aware of whether you use (e.g. media monitoring, which if you are not benefiting from, we should explore). Realistically, savings from further shared services in this and the next financial year are likely to be limited, given the time and investment needed to create them. This will be kept under review as the budget process progresses. Meanwhile, officers have estimated that the GLA: Mayor budget contains £2.6 million of expenditure for the benefit of the Assembly.

Page 2034

• The City Hall rent and service charges are fixed by contract, which we have no legal right to change until December 2021, i.e. all but three months of the period for which savings targets have been set.

• Reserves are set aside for a specific purpose, and while they can support expenditure through a period of adjustment, they clearly cannot be used to maintain recurring expenditure where there is not matching income. Group-level reserves are available to support all GLA organisations, including the Assembly, through the necessary adjustment process and I expand on this later in this letter. I would however note that despite the many risks to our income levels outlined in the Mayor’s budget documents and before the Budget and Performance Committee, the Assembly nevertheless decided to incur discretionary expenditure and run down its reserves.

• I am broadly aware of the nature of the Assembly’s workforce, though do not believe I have seen a detailed breakdown and would welcome being provided with one. Clearly none of us wish to see redundancies in any part of the GLA Group, but the expected income loss would appear to sadly make this inevitable.

• The statutory role of the Assembly was explicitly recognised in the Budget Guidance (para 3.12) and, like all statutory duties, will be throughout the budget process. At no point has it been suggested that its role is limited to scrutiny of activities under GLA: Mayor. The comparison with GLA: Mayor budget comes about because of the suggestion by some Assembly Members (which I do not believe the facts support) that the GLA: Assembly budget has been treated more harshly than that of the GLA: Mayor.

• The Assembly budget has increased from £7.2m in the 2016-17 budget set under the previous Mayor to £8.6m for 2020-21, i.e. a 19% increase in four years. I personally believe that is a fairly significant increase in a time of austerity; in the wider context, some may regard it as ‘dramatic’. The worst case savings target would see your budget just 6% lower than in 2016-17 (the comparable figure for the GLA: Mayor budget is a reduction of 25%). I note the comparison with a Parliamentary select committee, where of course one committee covers a Government department, in many cases with higher expenditure than the entire GLA Group.

• I will respond to your final point under item 4, below.

On the second point, I welcome the Assembly’s scrutiny of the repurposed GLA: Mayor budget, and, in due course, the proposed 2021-22 budget. It is fair to say that the Mayoralty has gained increased powers since 2016, however these are matters which the Assembly should in any case have been scrutinised as, for example, affordable housing delivery and adult education are clearly matters of importance to Londoners. The material increase in Assembly funding under this Mayor (19%) has not led to any material extensions to the Assembly’s scrutiny programme, for example through changes to your education scrutiny arrangements.

On the third point, I do not believe that the ‘emergencies and disasters’ provisions in the GLA Act have ever been used. As I said, it is not the Mayor’s current intention to use this provision as he has not sought to recalculate any of the constituent bodies’ approved 2020-21 component council tax requirements; were that to change we should of course discuss and agree how this would work in practice.

What the Budget Guidance is saying is that each Group organisation needs, within the overall budget set through the statutory process, to deliver savings this year equivalent to its savings

Page 2135

target, as their contribution to the overpayment of income we will receive this year. Of course, the Assembly can choose to ignore the Mayor’s guidance. However doing so would leave you with an even larger savings target to achieve next year, with the consequences that you rightly say we should seek to avoid.

You are right that we need to plan beyond 2021-22, however as discussed at Budget and Performance Committee the professional advice I have is that currently it is not possible to do so – the uncertainties are too numerous and too profound. What we can say is that the unprecedented expenditure by the Government, and the expected severity of the coming recession, will lead to immense pressures on public finances. I will come to the 2 July MHCLG funding package momentarily, but the limited nature of the financial support made available (none of which is being provided to the Mayor) demonstrates that we cannot rely on further Government support, or assume that further austerity will not be imposed on us in the years ahead. Reserves can indeed be replenished in better times, but it is not immediately apparent when these will be; the risks are overwhelmingly on the downside.

Much of the detail of the 2 July MHCLG funding package is still unclear, however it does allow us to repay this year’s council tax and business rates over-forecasts over the next three years. This has to be balanced against the significant risks to income in future years; it would be wrong and imprudent to ignore this challenge.

Different organisations’ circumstances will vary, but for GLA: Mayor and GLA: Assembly, on the currently available information regarding the MHCLG package, the Mayor believe that an appropriate approach would for us to deliver this year half of the proposed savings target, with the balance to be delivered in 2022-23 and 2023-24 should income levels increase beyond those forecast for 2021-22, and Group reserves used to fund the balance if that is not possible. This approach is designed to strike the right balance between acting given the gravity of the situation we face, not going too far given potential upsides (even if we do not expect them to occur), recognising the challenge of delivering in year savings and ensuring that we do not draw on reserves unless necessary. While the situation is dynamic and further changes may be necessary, at this time this would reduce the Assembly’s 2020-21 ‘scenario 3’ savings target to £450,000, which I hope will be welcome news.

On point 4, as you know the Mayor (and I) am very respectful of the Assembly’s statutory role, and I am confident I can rely on the Assembly to be equally respectful of the statutory role of the Mayor.

Under para 2(1) of Schedule 6 of the GLA Act, “the Mayor shall prepare a draft of his proposed component budget for each of the constituent bodies.” This, and subsequent draft and final draft consolidated budgets prepared by the Mayor, consists of a number of detailed budget lines that together form the proposed control total for the Assembly. So the Mayor has an important role to play in the production of the Assembly budget, with the Assembly’s powers of allocation coming into play once the Group budget has been set.

The budget guidance represents the first stage of the budget process. While the Mayor clearly has discretion to consider the matter further, it seems reasonable to assume that If no other new information were forthcoming, then the control totals that the Mayor would propose in his consultation budget are likely to be those set out in the budget guidance.

Given that you wish the Assembly’s control total to be higher than set out therein, you will wish to positively influence the recommendations that I will make to the Mayor. Whereas in previous years, the Mayor was able to adopt the recommendations of the committee in his draft budgets

Page 2236

(sometimes after discussion on one or two points), the severity of the budget challenge means that a more involved process is necessary this year than has been the case in the past.

I reject entirely the suggestion that because the Assembly’s savings target is small compared to the overall GLA Group budget it is of no consequence if parts of it were transferred to another organisation. All parts of the Group face an incredibly difficult budget process, and not being able to do things of importance to Londoners that they wish to. The Mayor is determined to protect the efficient delivery of statutory provision but beyond that, difficult choices will have to be made and no part of the Group can be immune from this.

This correspondence is already delayed and too long, so I shall refrain from responding to your other points under point four (as I don’t think that doing so will help progress matters), other than to say that I have asked David Gallie to get in touch with Gino Brand as you request.

You request a “fair hearing”; I don’t think I could be any clearer about my desire to positively engage, in order to assist the Mayor (and the Assembly) in carrying out their statutory duties with regard to setting the GLA: Assembly component budget. Having extensively discussed the basis for the proposed control totals and savings targets in our correspondence, at Bureau of Leaders and publicly at Budget and Performance Committee, I do feel we need to move on now and focus our energies on the best way in which they can be achieved.

Yours sincerely,

David Bellamy Chief of Staff

Cc Davena Toyinbo, GLA Oversight Committee Principal Committee Manager

Page 2337

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 2438 Appendix 14 Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA David Bellamy Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk Chief of Staff (Mayor’s Office)

Sent via email 25 August 2020

Dear David,

Greater London Authority (GLA) and GLA Group Budget

Thank you for your letter of the 7 August. I was conflicted about whether to respond, but after some deliberation concluded that there are some outstanding issues that must be addressed before we can move forward.

Underlying these issues is the feeling from the Assembly that the Mayor and his senior staff do not fully recognise the difference between the Assembly budget and that of the wider GLA family, which was the basis of my intervention at the Bureau of Leaders meeting last week.

Any reductions to the Assembly’s budget will impact immediately and substantively on its staffing resources. It is therefore a statement of fact to say that any budget cut will impact negatively, immediately and directly on the Assembly’s ability to maintain its current level of activity in support of its statutory functions. Budget cuts will lead to less scrutiny of the Mayoralty; this will harm the accountability mechanism at the heart of the GLA’s constitution and operation; less accountability in government bodies results automatically in a lowering of public trust in those bodies; a lowering of public trust degrades the entire institution over time. We are, therefore, asking you to think again, starting from a different premise.

On the details, there are two related issues: the coming in-year savings and the 2021/22 budget, to which the Mayor has given his direction of travel in his budget guidance. The budget guidance lacks appreciation of the unique character of the Assembly (and I should stress this does not mean completely avoiding reductions); and by inference to require the Assembly to make more cuts than the rest of the GLA. As I will argue below, this is not just because of the size of the Assembly budget but also how its budget is focused almost entirely on staffing costs.

I am grateful for your clarification that redundancies will not only fall onto the Assembly’s Secretariat. I raised the point to ensure that you understood that senior GLA officers had apparently told staff and the GLA's Trade Unions that there would be either no, or very few, redundancies in the GLA.

Page 2539 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

On the matter of the financial costs arising from redundancies, particularly in Assembly Secretariat teams with a strong record of retaining experienced members of staff, there appears currently to be a lack of any collective understanding, as well as a lack of messaging from the Chief Finance Officer and their colleagues, about how to fund any future redundancies corporately, rather than from individual team budgets (a point picked up in more detail below). It may be the case that you have already have this advice, but it should be shared more widely so the Assembly can plan its own budget and understand how redundancies will impact the wider GLA. We would be grateful for a discussion on this point at the earliest opportunity – noting that any imposition of a requirement on the Assembly to make immediate savings will trigger redundancy costs for the Secretariat, thereby making it even harder to achieve in-year savings.

Noting your concluding remarks, I can assure you that the Assembly does indeed want to focus on finding the best way forward. However, as I am sure you will agree, the best outcomes will flow from a process that is open and fair, and that does not contain misrepresentations or misunderstandings within its foundations.

In that spirit, it is necessary to make further comment on each of the points you make in your letter, as follows:

Members’ salaries – I am glad that you recognise that there are significant fixed-cost elements within the Assembly & Secretariat budget. The issue here is not, however, whether there are also fixed costs within the (much larger) Mayoral component budget; it is, rather, about ensuring proper recognition of the fact that, unless the Mayor wishes to cut Members’ salaries (having already, reflecting the decision by Parliament for local councillors, substantially reduced their pension benefits), over 20% of our budget is already outside of the scope of this exercise. Members’ salaries must be removed from your calculations as it is cost that neither you, nor the Assembly, has control over.

Redundancies – the Assembly’s position is the same as the Mayor’s in that it wishes to avoid all redundancies, anywhere in the GLA, wherever possible. We will, however, be paying close attention to this issue, to see what approach is taken within the wider GLA before taking final decisions in relation to the Secretariat. This will include a review of the proportion of actual, involuntary redundancies made in the GLA’s teams against the deletion of already-vacant posts and/or the departure of fixed-term employees whose contracts would naturally be coming to an end in any case.

Scenarios – I do not agree with your description of “confusion” on the part of some Members. The Assembly, quite naturally, would like certainty. It is understandable that you are not yet able to provide that. I would, though, caution against an apparent assumption that requests for clarity and robust financial information are indicative of misunderstandings.

Revised in-year savings target – the reduction of £450,000 in the amount expected to be cut from Assembly budgets in this current year is very welcome news, for which we are grateful. You go on to say “This means that the Assembly can decide whether or not to deliver your in- year savings target” and recommend that we do – but you no longer state that the Mayor will

Page 2640 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected] impose cuts on the Assembly if it sought to achieve the total level of savings currently required (£1.85m) by 1 April rather than in two tranches. Necessity may determine that finding savings in-year is not the most prudent approach for the Assembly. I am sure you will appreciate that our work programme is particularly demanding leading up to the 20/21 elections. Furthermore, depending on the results of the election, the proportion of funds allocated to each political group will inevitably change, as well as a revised system as to how to allocate that funding.

AEB and ring-fenced budgets – I have asked for the details (in my email to Mary Harpley of 13 August). Only then can we see whether this in an immaterial issue or not.

Staffing growth – your comments confirm that 124 posts have been added to the GLA: Mayor under this Mayoralty without external funding. Proportionately, this is rate of staffing growth 98% higher than that of the Assembly Secretariat’s in the same period (counting only the positions funded by the Assembly’s budgets and which support the Assembly’s functions) – and that is excluding the 253 other posts that have been added to the Mayoral establishment since 2016. This major disparity in the growth of additional staff within the Mayoral teams, with all of the consequent financial implications, needs to be fully reflected in the approach taken to find savings within the respective component budgets.

Shared services – you say that the Secretariat shared services benefits do not “in part” accrue to the Assembly budget. Could you explain the “part” which does accrue to the Assembly budget, please? As from the start of this financial year, before the impact of COVID-19 was known, the Assembly Communications team undertakes in-house media monitoring – we do not pay for an external provider. This is one of several small but important efficiency savings we have already made. Finally, you say that there is not time to set up new shared services arrangements.

Can you please confirm: the date on which the planned shared HR service with TfL was first formally proposed; the amount spent on Deloitte consultants in support of this proposal and when those consultants were first engaged; and the reasons for the extended delays to this proposal? Could you also confirm when it was initially proposed for there to be a shared IT service with TfL? Could you also please list the formal shared services arrangements entered into by the GLA in the period 2008-16, and then list the formal shared services arrangements entered into by the GLA since the period 2016-20, and include a break-down of the £2.6m shared services savings that apparently accrue to the Assembly.

City Hall rent charges – you say that the City Hall rental charges are fixed until December 2021. Can you please provide details, in confidence as necessary, of all recent contact and correspondence with and from the landlord, including the period up until 19 August (the date of the consultation deadline for the Assembly), relating to the options for future lease arrangements for City Hall, with specific reference to any and all new offers and proposals made by the landlord in that regard. I understand that my colleagues on the Assembly are asking further questions on rents relating to City Hall and the Crystal.

Page 2741 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

Reserves – again, it strikes many people as rather odd that, for the 2019-20 year, this Mayoralty and the Chief Finance Officer (in his former role) was willing, if not insistent, that the Assembly used its reserves. This was in order to fund £200,000 in growth, rather than allocating a tiny proportion of the additional business rates income flowing into the Mayoral budget to support the Assembly (and instead putting that business rates income into reserves, allowing the Mayoralty to suggest that additional growth was being funded from reserves rather than business rates). This approach, requiring the Assembly to use its reserves, is in stark contrast to the views now being put forward. It seems to many as though this is a wholly inconsistent approach, based upon an entirely subjective view regarding what the Mayoralty considers to be acceptable activity by the Assembly, dressed up as a point of high principle.

On a more substantive aspect of the reserves issue, it is noted that you confirm that Group- level reserves are potentially available to support the Assembly. We are keen to explore this, because we are concerned that, due entirely to the statutory nature of the Assembly’s component budget, a reduction of costs for the longer-term will trigger significant upfront costs for the Assembly. Those costs will either (or both) prevent the Assembly from being able to make the required level of reductions by 1 April 2021 or mean that the Assembly has to make much larger cuts than it actually needs to, in order to fund one-off costs that arise from its attempts to make reductions. Could you please confirm that you are willing to discuss the possibility of provision being made for the Assembly from within Group-level reserves to meet the one-off costs that will arise from making reductions to the Secretariat’s establishment?

Assembly workforce – the point here is that, in law, the Assembly’s budget has to comprise staffing costs and little else. We will provide details of the Assembly’s workforce alongside any future budget proposals. Nevertheless, it is true to say that any reductions to the Assembly budget – unlike any other component budget within the GLA Group – will impact immediately and substantively on its staffing resources.

It is for this reason that the Mayor must not treat the Assembly as another department of the GLA, applying the same mathematical formula (slightly adjusted) and claiming that it is an equitable approach. The Assembly has a unique role within strategic London government and its own democratic mandate. This needs to be fully respected. On a practical level, this means having a different kind of conversation with Members about their role and function and the resources required, in the context of already having reviewed the relatively vast budgets elsewhere within the GLA and wider Group. This is not ‘special pleading’ – the Assembly, as a directly elected body, is different to any other part of the GLA. This means that a fundamentally different approach is needed when it comes to resource requirements for the Assembly. There should have been a proper process of discussion before and after the budget guidance was issued.

Imposing major cuts, which equate to amounts that will ultimately be lost in the roundings in the overall situation, on the body elected to scrutinise the executive on behalf of Londoners is a mistake and will cost this Authority, in more than just a financial sense, in future, long after the current Mayor has left office.

Page 2842 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected]

Increases in the Assembly budget – I understand, and share, your frustration in how persistent the arguments around the Assembly’s budget are. However, I have replied to your letter because I do not consider your assessment of the Assembly’s budget to be reasonable or, in the mind of some, respectful. It is a simple fact that an increase from one penny to two pence could be described as a “dramatic 100% increase”. More care needs to be taken to properly reflect the relative size of the Mayoral and Assembly component budgets, properly to reflect unavoidable pressures (inflation) and one-off items that distort the picture (AEB, Olympics precept). In 2017-18, the size of the Mayoral budget was reduced from the previous year’s level. In fact, that was simply because the final year of the Olympics precept was 2016-17. That funding was for specific purposes, as is the AEB grant. So, if those items are excluded from the budget figures, along with inflationary rises, a much clearer picture of the real-terms growth within the GLA budget that has taken place under this mayoralty emerges.

I attach a note that takes full account of this context. You will immediately note that it shows that the percentage increase, in real terms, in the Mayor’s budget since 2016 is far greater than the percentage increase in the Assembly’s budget – with or without inflation. If you do wish to continue to use the 19% figure to describe the Assembly’s budget over time, there is no doubt that many of my colleagues will be happy to use the 40% figure to describe the growth under this Mayor during the same period.

Also, you state that the growth in the Assembly budget has not led to “any material extensions” to the Assembly’s scrutiny programme. This is simply inaccurate, as, for just one example, the relatively substantive increase in 2017-18 reflected the establishment of the Assembly’s statutory Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee and its workstreams.

The other points in your letter are noted, and you no doubt accurately reflect the Mayor’s thinking. I will, however, be writing to David Gallie, as he is the statutory Chief Finance Officer for the GLA, to request his formal, written advice on those matters.

I look forward to hearing from you on the issues and questions raised above as soon as possible. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

Yours sincerely

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Mary Harpley, Chief Officer David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat

Page 2943 Direct telephone: 020 7983 4350 Email: [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 3044 Appendix 15

Additional Correspondence Sent

Dear Victoria,

Thank you for your emails of 15 and 22 June and for your patience in waiting for my reply. I wanted to fully consult Members of the Oversight Committee before making a decision about your request for the Committee to investigate a number of issues relating to the Silvertown Tunnel.

I considered your request carefully and have concluded, with majority backing of the Committee, not to pursue an investigation.

You express several opinions about the consultation process and the period of time leading up to the decision to agree the Tunnel. Over the years the Assembly has made recommendations to Transport for London about its consultation and commissioning processes and we will continue to look at these issues through the Oversight and Budget and Performance Committees. However, I – and the majority of the committee - see limited value in the Committee reviewing the specific events leading up to the agreement of the Tunnel. In regard to Assembly scrutiny of the Tunnel, I am content with the work that the Transport Committee has done on the project over previous years.

Your request does raise some valuable questions, particularly around the impact of COVID-19 and future travel demand in London. I will write to the Deputy Mayor for Transport to request they provide you with further clarification on these issues.

Some Members of the Committee do have concerns about transparency surrounding the cancellation costs of the Tunnel, as well as about the assessment of the financial viability of the project at this time. The Committee will write to Transport for London to request information regarding those concerns. At the same time I will ask TfL about its redaction policy and how those decisions are made.

In regard to your questions on whether the Tunnel represents value for money, whilst I do not agree with your position, you do have the right to contact the external auditor for the GLA, who also happens to be the external auditor for TfL - Karl Havers of EY.

Yours,

Len Duvall AM Chair – Oversight Committee

Sent via email on 2 September 2020

Page 3145 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 3246

Appendix 2

GLA Oversight Committee – Wednesday 9 September 2020

Transcript of Item 6 – COVID-19: Phase 1

Len Duvall AM (Chair): We have set out three areas of questioning for you today. One is the initial setup and arrangements of how you see the London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group (SCG) and then we are going to pick up some responses back from the London boroughs and some key issues in there that emerged during that period of time. Then, finally, we might talk about this last period of time when you have moved into new arrangements, very timely in terms of the challenges we face, and around where they are. We will talk further about those.

Would one of you like to make an opening statement or would you prefer if I just went into our list of questions?

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I am happy to go into the list of questions if that works for you.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): It does. Thank you very much. This is to all of you and, really, it is about your reflections and roles around this period of time. Can you tell us about the period leading up to March 2020 and the formation of the SCG? When did preparations start? When were things starting to come together? Who wants to take that first question?

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Like those of you in this meeting, the London Resilience Forum (LRF) first became aware that there was a new virus that people were concerned about in China in January [2020]. If you remember, as early as the People’s Question Time in January, the Mayor was asked about it. This has been something that, even before we established an SCG in March, the LRF - which, as you know, I chair on behalf of the Mayor - was doing considerable amount of work on in terms of looking at what was emerging as a risk, reviewing the framework for pandemic flu and seeing how we could translate it into a framework for COVID-19, which was done in time for the LRF’s meeting in early February. That was based largely on the pandemic flu model. However, at the time, we had very little information about the new disease that was emerging on a worldwide basis, first notably identified in Wuhan.

There was considerable work going on at that time. The LRF had a discussion about it at its meeting in early February. We established a small group where we were monitoring what was happening over February and early March. We had a number of meetings with Public Health England (PHE) on an almost daily basis, at points several times a day, as we got towards the setting up of the SCG.

The Mayor held a Mayor’s Advisory Group in early March where it was decided that we needed to address the matter as a system-wide issue for London. At that point, the Mayor invited John Barradell and Eleanor Kelly to act as Co-Chairs, which has been really crucial to the management of the process.

At this point, it would behove me to say genuinely - and I know I have said it before in meetings - that we do owe Eleanor and John a debt of gratitude for everything they have done over the past few months. As you will have noted from Eleanor’s job title and as you will be aware of John’s role, we have borrowed a lot of their time

Page 47 from their already quite substantial roles. We are very grateful. I am very grateful personally and I know the Mayor is very grateful as are Members for everything they have done to lead the coordination.

I will probably hand over to John now to talk about how he is the principal Chair. I hope Eleanor does not mind saying that John has been the principal Chair of the SCG in the response. John can maybe talk us through how that process worked once we triggered the strategic coordination process and protocols in early March. I will hand over to you, John.

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I would make two points, Chair, if I can and, Members, if I can, and I said this before to the previous scrutiny. What we were facing here in the early part of the year was very different to anything we have particularly exercised for in the past or indeed were expecting. Most often when these incidents or these kinds of events occur, you do have people readily available at your elbow who can coalesce around a table. You can pull resource into a place and get the right response together. We had to engineer this arrangement virtually from scratch when people had to be distant for very good reason. We had to invent new processes, procedures and ways of working on the fly. That probably presented one of our biggest challenges.

Nonetheless, we had with the help of the London Fire Brigade - and thanks, Fiona, to the team over in Union Street for their support in this - identified premises and identified facilities very quickly that we were able to show various key people around - that included members of the Government as well as the Mayor himself - to see the arrangements that were being put in place. We had a basis and we had a battle rhythm as they call it - a horrendous phrase - and a way of working that made sure that information was being shared, decisions could be taken and logged, and that a regular set of works, meetings and sessions took place with the key partners involved.

The very early part of that work was not simply about how London would respond, how services were being managed, whether the National Health Service (NHS) required support or not and the various roles taking place in the coordination, but also trying to keep all of the stakeholders informed. That would include Assembly Group Members, for example, and London Members of Parliament (MPs) as well as the local council group leaders across London, really to try to make sure that everyone in the system of oversight and responsibility for oversight of public services in London was cited, could see and could comment on and challenge as the process took place.

I will stop there. Otherwise, we will get into a little bit of the weeds of this, Chair. I will let Members drag and pull out questions and answers as they need it, unless of course Eleanor has anything she wants to add to that.

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I would only add that it is important to recognise that there was a principal Chair. People look at the list of Co-Chairs and say, “How can that possibly work?” We have the advantage, John and I, of having worked together on a number of things and have been the Chair and the Vice Chair of the [LRF’s] Local Authorities Panel (LAP) and we know how to play to our strengths. Also, given the scale of the work that was required, it was necessary to be able to do a division of labour and make sure that all of those things that John covered were able to be covered in the right way and on quite a repetitive basis in relation to the numbers of meetings and the numbers of engagements that had to take place over what has been and continues to be and protracted a period of time.

It is a very good reflection on London across all of the sectors as to how people stepped up and engaged with that and that is from the Assembly through the MPs, through the group leaders, through the leaders, through

Page 48 the chief executives and through all of the leads across the NHS, the police, the Fire Brigade and the local authorities. It is a real testament to London’s resilience and the processes that are in place.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Of course you are dealing with a number of partners and a number of workstreams, which you have already reported to the Committee in the past. We might come back to you, but you are doing it on the basis of a very unclear legal framework. You are trying to reach consensus with people but there is a bit of command and control because you are operating during an emergency.

Can you just describe how those arrangements worked? Where the higher authority clearly was the Government, that would be clear, but in a regional scenario or a London-wide scenario, the police’s higher authority would be the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] and the Home Secretary around those. Can you try to describe some of those complexities and how you managed that process? We may ask you to write to us additionally about the magnitude of some of those issues. Who wants to deal with that?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): If I can start, from my point of view - and I have said this before to you or to the Assembly - clearly, the relationship with the Government was key for this because it was an extremely fast-moving set of circumstances. COVID moved at speed, London being the first centre of population that had to face some of the issues. We had to make sure that the arrangements that were put in place in London had the support of the Government not only for funding reasons but also, if you will, to provide the feedback into the Government machine to allow them to understand the nuances of London, the complexity of London and London’s communities, and the need for locality to be paramount. What I mean by that is the different communities in London are very different. They have local leadership that needs to be respected, in my view, and also brought along with what was being done.

The second thing to say from my perspective is that there was clearly a point in time when things needed to move a little bit from consensus to, “We need to get on and do this”. While there are 33 local authority bodies plus the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Mayor, we do need to get to a degree of consensus and action. There is not time for endless debate. There needs to be a bit of activity. We did get the Government support for the SCG to be able to encourage - and it is no more than that - people to take action when it was needed. That was very helpful. It did cause, as you are aware, Chair, some friction at times, but in the end people did understand the need for collective action to pool resources. It is, as Eleanor said, a testament to public and private services, actually, and the private sector in London when people did pull together, gave assistance to each other and worked very closely with us and with the Government.

That is probably as far as I would say. Of course we will get something back to you with a bit more detail on how that actually worked.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. Learning about that period of time, there were a number of issues. I will not go into those now. We can detail those. They were in the press and whatever. There were slightly different complexity problems but no different from some parts of the country in terms of some of those issues that were arising.

Have you as the SCG done your own report or did you rely on or have you fed into the June meeting of the LRF? Where have you logged your work about what worked well, what did not, what needs to improve and what could be done better? Have you done that yourselves as a group or do we need to look to the LRF review? I understand there was a meeting in June regarding the first wave. Where do I need to look and what can be shared with this Committee?

Page 49 John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): From my perspective - and Fiona may want to talk about the Forum - the SCG itself did something, I believe, in early May looking at lessons learned from within the various partners on the SCG. There were a number of lessons and areas for further work to be done in case there were to be a need for a second SCG at some point in the future. That was fed in, I believe, into the LRF, but I did not unfortunately attend that meeting, as far as I remember, in June. Fiona can probably answer that one. Yes, there were ‘lessons learned’ created and the key elements of that can certainly be shared with the Committee.

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I would add to that. There was one exercise in terms of doing a piece on initial learning. To completely distinguish between the SCG and the LRF is a false division because a lot of the people who are at the SCG meetings are key partners at the LRF. What we have done is divide it up into the piece of work that John mentioned, which was about lessons learned for strategic coordination of COVID-19, and lessons learned in relation to the role and functioning of the LRF, potentially, with other future incidents in mind. We are happy to share those with the Committee.

There were seven actions for the LRF. These included scoping a number of ways in which it might be easier to manage an incident of long duration in the future. John mentioned that we were able to secure the premises at Union Street. We have the ground floor of Union Street for the strategic coordination centre, as Members are aware. However, we do not have a permanent or even call-up arrangement around what kind of facilities. One of these is scoping agreed facilities to host a strategic coordination centre, bearing in mind in this instance we are likely to need the space for some time going forward, and how to manage to staff options for protracted incidents with shared information technology (IT) and data transfer solutions across partners to be able to operate collectively more easily - there are confidentiality issues around quite a lot of material that partners need to share - and options for dedicated comms teams that are independent of any agency.

What we will do as we go forward is those are being scoped at the moment for future discussion by the LRF but, as a city and as a system within the city with responsibility for civil contingencies and preparedness, we do need to continue to review our collective response both as we go through it but also with a mind to what would enable us to operate more smoothly in the future. It is really important to make sure that we are open to learning as we go through the process, not because there is a criticism of anybody individually, but we do not want to always have an all-hands-to-the-pump approach to this sort of incident. We do need to be as prepared and planned as possible in how we operate. I will leave it there for a moment, but we will make sure you get the information.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. We might want to enter into correspondence with you about some of the bits that you felt were missing, but that may come out in later questions and so I will come back on that. I want to go back quickly to the responsibilities and accountability that you were working under. In my mind, there are three, probably, golden shareholders in London. We could probably talk about more but let us talk about the democracy bit. They are not equal. Let us be honest. We have the Government at the top and then we have the Mayor and then we have local government. The Mayor and local government have partly different responsibilities but they have a different weighting, I still believe, to be honest. They all have a view about how things should be done, I would imagine. Probably with local government it would be 33 views. The trouble with the Mayor is that it will be his view. Then we have the Government with the views of the Government and the Government departments. We should not forget that. In some ways we talk of the Government being as one, but they are not. They are departments and they have different priorities and issues.

Page 50 In terms of the priorities given to you as an SCG, do we think they were clear enough? It is a bit difficult because I have a political view on some of that clarity, but in terms of having to get on to carry out operational issues, do you think they were clear in terms of priorities they gave you, whether you delivered them or in the context of what you had to do? There were some impossible asks at some stages during that period of time, it seemed to me, that just could not be done in some ways. Can you just elaborate a little bit more about that?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I would put it slightly differently, Chair, if I can, needless to say. There is a degree of autonomy - and there has to be - in the role of the SCG because it represents not only the governance side or the governmental side of local, regional and national but also other agencies that are fiercely independent like the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), for example. The role of the SCG is simply to coordinate their activity - and ‘coordination’ is the key word here rather than direction - and it is about coordinating the activity around a common goal.

It is the definition of the common goal that is critical upfront. The reality was that this was a health-led crisis and the initial stage was about how we provide support to the NHS and how we provide support to Londoners. That support will be around several things. One would be making sure that the processes and systems in place to support the NHS were there. For example - and the Deputy Mayor may want to comment on this - the Fire Brigade’s support for ambulance driving was a key element of that. It was trying to make sure that the various agencies worked together for the common purpose.

The second one was to escalate to the Government and to embed Government officials within the process so that they understood the nuances and differences of London and so that things that were being brought down to us were understood in terms of their impact on London and how the system works.

The second thing I would say is that there was, in my view, a very good ability for us to influence back up the chain and to raise our issues in advance, allowing all the stakeholders, whether it be the local authorities, the chief executives or the leaders through the group leader system, for briefing back on issues that were of concern to the locality through the system. I did not feel that there was a degree of direction in that sense or prescription on what we had to do. That came from the members of the SCG itself and the definition of what our objective and the outcome we were seeking. I do not know, Deputy Mayor, if you want to add anything to that, but that was my perception as Chair. I did not feel under obligation to anyone, apart from Londoners, bluntly.

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): John summed up well the point about cooperative working. I have spoken in different forums and maybe at the previous Oversight Committee about the role of the London Fire Brigade in relation to the ambulance driving, in relation to Pandemic Multi-Agency Response Teams (PMARTs) and in relation to a whole host of areas such as distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE). That cooperative working was evident across the system.

It is also about that constant dialogue. For example, at a political level, at one point there were daily meetings between City Hall and the leaders of London Councils. We still have those twice a week. That constant dialogue, including, as John has identified, the embedding of Government officials at the strategic coordination centre, enabled that to be much more along the lines of discussion about what London needed rather than directives. It was quite often the case that things were being fed back up in terms of urgent requirements as much as the other way. I recognise the description John made of that, but in terms of that constant dialogue between PHE and the NHS and the Mayor, between me and the Mayor, between other people in the Mayor and between the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, John Barradell and Number 10, for example,

Page 51 these are all really important mechanisms by which that communication and the oils of discussion were kept going.

There was never a point during the early stage of the response where it felt like there was a massive disconnect between what was being required of the London system and what we felt at a SCG level was what we should be aiming at.

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Can I just add one thing? Thank you. Can I just add one thing in relation to this, which is a bit of historical context? In the review that was done some years ago by Lord [Toby] Harris about whether London is resilient [An Independent Review of London’s Preparedness to Respond to a Major Terrorist Incident, 2017], the answer was yes, but there were a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations was that people other than senior people in the blue-light services should be the Chairs of the SCG because it was recognised that there might be a circumstance where much broader skills, perhaps with more political acumen, would be required. People in the NHS, people in PHE and chief executives of local authorities were identified as having skillsets that would help in this. It is important to recognise that, looking back, that was a really important point because it is exactly what was required in this circumstance and where, although it was a health-led issue, there were a whole raft of sectors across the public and private sectors that needed to be involved and needed to be coordinated. Having that skillset beyond a blue-light Chair of an SCG was incredibly important. That is quite an important historic point that London was ready because some years ago that point was recognised and was implemented in relation to training and that we were ready to be able to do something as complicated and as far-reaching as this.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Of course that is still an outstanding matter formally. It is an important point you raise. We have never had a mayoral response to that review. We need to follow up on that and thank you for highlighting that particular report.

How did the Mayor and his team or deputy mayors in some cases feed into yourselves about issues that they were concerned about? What was their role? How did that work? We might come back to you on others but for the sake of time if you could come back quickly on that to me?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Very quickly, Fiona and a couple of her staff were daily, literally 12 to 14 hours a day, sitting two doors down in Union Street. It is fair to say that concerns and issues raised from City Hall went straight into the meetings and straight on the table.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): That would be the same for the Government. There were daily meetings with the Government. Were you part of those daily meetings with the Government or was that between City Hall and the Government? How does that work?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I can only answer for the ones I was in, Chair, but we had implants in Union Street at a fairly senior level from the Government who are still around and in the system, as it were, and there were, as Fiona said, regular phone contacts with senior Government officials to raise issues on London’s behalf that were issues arising from the SCG meetings. For ones that we felt needed escalation, there was a very clear and simple escalation route.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Are there any other Members who want to come in on this point? Assembly Member Susan Hall?

Page 52

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Can you tell me how many times the Mayor attended SCG meetings?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): As the Deputy Mayor said, the first piece was the Mayor’s Advisory Group, which kicked it off. Thereafter, I frankly would not expect the Mayor to attend the SCG meetings. They were detailed and they were of a type where you would report the outcomes to the Mayor and they would be asks back to the Mayor as opposed to participation. It is an important distinction as we go forward and links back to a point the Chair made earlier about the distinction that is needed between the activity - I was going to call it operational, Assembly Member, but it is a little less than that - where you do need the oversight but not necessarily the interference, if I can be blunt about that.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): I just wondered how many times. He came to the first and not the second. Has he actually attended all the London Transition Board meetings, then, John?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK. Thanks. I will leave it at that, Chair.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. Shall we move on to our second set of questions, which is on London boroughs’ feedback and some of the issues they have raised? Also, we might be covering some issues that came up during that period of time. Can I ask Assembly Member Navin Shah to begin with a set of questions?

Navin Shah AM: My selection of questions are to Eleanor Kelly. What lessons have been learned from the response by the London boroughs, Eleanor?

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): What I would say is that London Councils’ Leaders Committee has commissioned a review into that very point and that is underway at the moment. There are lessons learned along the way and those continuously get updated and improved in relation coordination, relationships and communication.

One of the key lessons is that, although this was a health issue, in the first instance the sub-regional groupings were set up around the footprints that we use for emergency planning. We have recognised that actually the sub-regional groupings for COVID particularly are much better place to be set up around the health Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) footprints. That is the arrangement that is in place under the Transition Management Group.

The lessons learned have been learned moving along and all local authorities have moved swiftly in terms of those lessons being learned, but it would be very interesting to see the output when it is completed of the review that the London leaders have commissioned.

Navin Shah AM: Eleanor, can you please ensure that we have that output information available to us? Do you have any idea when you expect that to be available?

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): As I say, it was London Councils that commissioned it. I can certainly go back to John O’Brien [Chief Executive, London Councils] and ask him the timeframe. I know that it is underway at the

Page 53 moment. I can ask him the timeframe and we can certainly make that formal request to London Councils. I am sure it will be a public document once it is completed.

Navin Shah AM: I would be grateful. It is an important piece of work and it would be great to have it with us as soon as it is available. We can chase it up when we know when it is going to be available.

Following on from that, can you tell us how prepared you think London boroughs are in terms of a potential second wave if it were to happen?

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Work is underway at present across all of those sub-regional activities in terms of a second wave. If I speak just to my own sub-region in relation to southeast London, we are involved this week in a big exercise involving all leaders and chief executives about preparation for outbreak control cross- borough. That is reflected in the other sub-regions doing that work. In relation to those lessons learned, in terms of your first question, that is the point about being clear that this is not linear. Things cannot and do not and contain themselves within borough boundaries. They will actually be cross-borough and we need fantastic cooperation across. As I am sure John or Fiona can come into, we are much better prepared operationally and organisationally across all of the sectors, around things like hospitals and around mortuaries and so forth, because of the learning from the first wave, but in the work that has been going on in boroughs on the new responsibilities that they have, they are taking that on board and are actually working much more cross- borough and much more cross-sector in each of those sub-regions. I am only one person but I would be confident that the work is underway and the learning has been learned in relation to being ready for that second wave.

What I would say is it is incredibly important to be clear about data, the availability of data and the availability of information. I constantly repeat that, if the data is available, it ought to be shared and ought to be shared as widely as possible because, in this respect, data and information is incredibly important. The more people understand, the more likely they are to do what you ask them to do in relation to trying to get infection control in place. We have much better data sharing across from PHE and from the NHS down into local authorities and down into local arrangements so that we can on a daily basis be tracking what is going on in our neighbourhoods and be able to share that both within boroughs and across sub-regions and be ready to address in as effective a way possible outbreak control plans.

Particularly if a second wave is lower and slower, then we can stay on top of it much better. The first wave was so unpredictable and so steep and nobody could ever know when it was going to stop rising. Thank goodness it did stop rising when it did. With a lower and slower second wave, London is incredibly well placed across all of its sectors, not just across local authorities.

Navin Shah AM: That sounds reassuring. Can I ask you? Do you think that the boroughs are and will be well equipped in terms of resourcing and in terms of financial resources, which are having to cope with the extra pressures that local authorities have, as well as especially items like procurement of PPE or having the right level of those resources available? Do you think that we are ready for any such call that we may have if there was a second wave?

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): To be honest, I am not the right person to ask that question. I would say, as the Chief Executive of a London borough, no, the financial situation is incredibly precarious for everybody across London. Your question is probably a question best put either to the Chair of London Councils or to perhaps the finance lead under the Chief Executives of London Committee. The financial situation is incredibly difficult,

Page 54 but I would say that within the resources that we have available, the operational and strategic issues around things like PPE, mortality management and so forth are as well managed as they can possibly be at the moment. In a resilience sense, it is not just COVID. There are a number of challenges facing London boroughs, facing the NHS, facing PHE and its successor body, and facing the police. We just cannot be complacent.

That is much more of a personal and professional from one borough perspective as much as it is from the Co- Chair of the SCG.

Navin Shah AM: Moving on to my last question, the feedback that London Assembly has received from local authorities would suggest that communication between local government and national Government could have been better during the initial response. As we move into the next phase of our response in which the role of the local Directors of Public Health takes an increased importance, have the communications between local authorities, national Government and the London Transition Board improved?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes. My sense is, yes, the early days of this were quite difficult because, as Eleanor said, no one knew quite how this was going to play out, certainly in terms of the degree of infection and the ability of the NHS to continue to cope, bluntly, with the volume. We saw that with the building of Nightingale [Hospital] at the ExCel Centre for an example and the need to build that at pace. Also, frankly, the expectation of local authorities to continue to provide services beyond the shielding of vulnerable people and what we call the ‘core services’. A mistake I made early on was to ask the boroughs whether they thought their critical services were at risk. What I did not do was personally properly define what I meant by that and there were a variety of different interpretations put on it that caused me chaos afterwards, which was my fault. What I was trying to get to was an understanding from a system point of view of whether the councils, local authorities and other partners could keep their basic services running if we were to shut down the town halls, the offices and the transport system and what the impact would be, to be able to give reassurance to the Mayor and back up to the Government as to what the situation in London would likely be. There was a lesson there - back to the Chair’s earlier point - about language. It is always my problem, actually. You have to define the language really carefully. Otherwise, people make an assumption of what you are actually asking for. A very early lesson was that one.

Once we got through that and once we got through the local authorities organising themselves sub-regionally and identifying one of the chiefs as being their lead person, the communication became a lot better. It settled down. People knew the personalities involved and knew what their strengths and weaknesses were, and how best to get engagement from them. The system worked far better.

I would go back. This was being done at pace with something that was not known. We were the first in the country to do that, with a local government system in London that to say is complex is an understatement, with remote working over electronics all at the same time.

Navin Shah AM: I would simply like to make a comment and probably stop there. I represent Harrow and Brent boroughs as my constituency and I know for sure that we had a lot of concerns during the early stages of the pandemic that we did not know what to expect from the Government. There was this constant problem of what we do in certain circumstances, what the local authorities do and what to expect from the Government. That was really not acceptable. That was a pretty damning situation.

From your experience, from your position, are you sure that that relationship and that situation has improved and that that communication is now what it should be to deal with such a serious situation?

Page 55

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): The difference, I can tell you, Assembly Member, is that the Chief Executive of Brent is now the lead chief executive for the northwestern sub-region. She is not someone who is backward in coming forward and I am sure if there is an issue that is of concern to Brent - she is a Member of the Transition Group and I hope to speak to her this afternoon at the next Transition Group meeting - and I would expect her to be raising concerns direct with the Government representatives in the room. There is a mechanism for them to do that and there has been a mechanism for them to do that from the beginning.

The challenge, as the Deputy Mayor said, was partly that the expectation of the Government was not known and local government in some cases were waiting to be told. Other boroughs decided to do what they thought was best and get on with it. Some were waiting to be told. That is where you saw a degree of inconsistency, which is what we then had to try to grip to say, “This is what you need to think about”.

Unmesh Desai AM: Eleanor, you very rightly talked about the need to work across municipal boundaries. Of course, the virus does not recognise municipal boundaries and we have to think at a wider level. I note with interest what you just said, John, about local authorities organising sub-regionally and, if I understood you correctly, the enhanced role you mentioned of the Chief Executive of Brent. Let me ask you this question. It is in the context of what lessons have been learned from the response by the London boroughs from the first wave in preparing for a potential second wave. What has concerned me greatly, taking east London as an example - and I have raised this question at Health Committee meetings and the local media and I have written to the Director of Public Health of one of the boroughs I represent - in east London you have Tower Hamlets, Newham and Barking and Dagenham, and of course I also represent the City of London, but there are London-wide issues here. I am not being parochial. In Newham in March, we were told things were OK. By the end of April, Newham had, sadly, shot to the top of the list in terms of reported cases and the number of deaths. The death rate in Newham is equal to that of Barking and Dagenham and Tower Hamlets, boroughs with the same characteristics, same demographics, same issues with lack of resources and so on.

I just want to know exactly. Is there an explanation for this? The response I have had so far from the Director of Public Health for Newham at the Health Committee of the GLA and from the London Public Health Director is, “It is about resourcing and we are looking into this”, but it concerns me. It is a question I have been asking for some time and I will continue asking because we have to learn all the lessons from the first wave if we are to genuinely prepare properly for the second wave. Why is it, if any of you can explain? I know that you do not have a medical background in that sense, but what has gone wrong in terms of the disproportionality in cases reported and deaths in one part of east London when the picture in another two boroughs is completely different.

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): You are right that I do not have a medical qualification and that is one of the things that the London Director of Public Health, Kevin Fenton, who is the Mayor’s advisor on public health as well, is certainly concerned about and has done some work on. Suffice to say that there are immediate lessons, particularly in terms of communication and particularly in terms of understanding the need, as Eleanor talked earlier about, for more information to be given to the public and to community groups that can go straight out to change and encourage the change of behaviour. You are seeing that, by the way, in Tower Hamlets at the moment with some work with Muslim communities, for example, specifically targeting the change of behaviour for younger people to understand the need to protect and help older people in the community from being infected.

Page 56 Boroughs understand their communities best. We have ward-level data now published on the national website to assist with this and to allow local people - and I said this before, Chair, to one of your previous scrutiny meetings - and local politicians, who are the best placed people in some cases to go out to their communities and encourage change as local leaders. That may be what sits at the root of your question, Assembly Member.

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes, the questions around disproportionality and what we knew about the disease when it first emerged and what we know about it now do really stand at the heart of how we need to prepare for the second wave. I know Eleanor as well has done a lot in terms of highlighting issues around people with learning disabilities and complex needs and looking at those particular groups, which also have had massive disproportionality. This is something that it would benefit the Committee to talk to PHE about.

What I have observed, though, in some of the recent meetings of the Transition Management Group is very much this thing about community level communications and making sure communications are appropriate, are in the right language and are provided by people who understand those communities, as well as local boroughs undertaking quite a lot of bespoke work using specific language and with an understanding of the communities they serve.

Note that the Mayor raised issues around disproportionality very early on before it was looked into at a national level and has subsequently undertaken a lot of work through teams at the GLA working with PHE on looking at what can be done to address disproportionality. This includes the Mayor creating a series of videos in Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali and Hindi that encouraged the use of face coverings, observing social distancing and regular handwashing, which are still core to the public health messages that we will continue to see coming out from central Government over the next few days as we enter these new range of measures the Government announced last night.

Unmesh Desai AM: -- with more of a comment than a question, I welcome what the Mayor is doing about getting the message out in different languages. That is fantastic. John, in my opinion anyway, you are touching on some of the issues that underpin the differences. Messaging is important. The Director of Public Health from Tower Hamlets was very good at our Committee and talked about how Tower Hamlets communicates. It is also due to issues like enforcement, overcrowding and how councils run their private sector licensing schemes. Councils like Barking and Dagenham have very robust enforcement measures in action with a great philosophy. That could start explaining some of the variations in reported cases and deaths.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. We are going to move on to the next set of questions from Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes. Could I just maybe start with Eleanor? What are the London Transition Management Group and the London Transition Board doing to ensure the views of London boroughs are properly reflected as part of the ongoing response to COVID-19?

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): That is actually a question for John but, particularly on the Transition Management Group, the London boroughs are very well represented, as John said earlier, in relation to being able to feed directly both into the Transition Management Group but also with the group leaders being on the Transition Board. I will pass that question to John.

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): The short answer is that they are well represented. The meeting this

Page 57 afternoon has a specific item for each of the sub-regional chiefs to update issues they want to raise back up the system, as it were, through to the Government, which sits on the calls. That has always been the case. The original way it was set up did not work as well because it was reliant upon one individual to represent all of London local government on a daily basis. That had to change and that changed with the Transition Group.

The Transition Board, which has the oversight, has the group leaders from London Councils represented on it, chaired by the and the Chair of London Councils as well and so politically, yes, and also officer-wise on the Transition Group itself.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: The sub-regions are, you believe, a much stronger way to make sure you get feedback up from those boroughs but also out?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes. There is, from my perspective, real value of the twice weekly meetings or twice weekly conference calls with the group leaders from London Councils, bluntly, because dealing with 33 leaders would be quite a challenge for me in a day job [let alone] trying to do it on top of the other stuff we are doing. Having the group leaders able to do it makes it an awful lot easier for us to get the message straight out using the channels that exist.

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): If I could add, Zena Etheridge [Interim Chief Executive for the London Borough of Haringey], who is the lead chief executive for the boroughs, also sits on the Transition Board. It is both the political leads and the officer-level leads who sit at that level to make sure the views of boroughs are represented.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Lovely. That answers my questions. .

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Can I bring in Assembly Member Joanne McCartney?

Joanne McCartney AM: I have just a quick question on something that John mentioned earlier. In the initial response, John, you said that some local authorities got on and did and some waited for Government instructions. Can I just check that moving forward there is a clear expectation now about a uniform response across our local authorities?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): The short answer is yes because the risk I can see personally at the strategic level is not a postcode lottery but goes back to the earlier question about why it is different in one borough to another and trying to get a degree of coordination and consistency across the system. That is not only geography. That is also agency as well to make sure it is one message and one set of activities.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. I am going to go back to Assembly Member Unmesh Desai for two questions.

Unmesh Desai AM: To the panel, what have been the key challenges posed by the easing of lockdown restrictions? This is to all of you. I do not know who wants to start. Fiona?

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): People were very clear what the rules of the game were until lockdown started to ease and then, because there were so many different things that could or could not happen in various points, people did not necessarily quite understand the rationale as to why they could do one thing but

Page 58 could not do another. It became far more complex. For example, people did not understand why you could play golf or have a gardener around but you could not go and visit your family and so forth. That got really complicated. Part of what the Government appears to be trying to achieve through the clarity that has been given overnight is to start simplifying the message back down, which, hard as the message might be, is potentially very helpful.

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): From my perspective, one of the things - and this is moving into the Transition Management Group and Board - is the very clear piece from the business sector about the impact on business that did not come at the early stage. Clearly, the early stage was really around the medical side and the pandemic and the lockdown. What has become very apparent is the effect on the London economy and therefore the balance between the two sides. That is different and that has developed over time.

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): If I can add on that point, it is about the approach we take and trying to make sure we do not set the economy up against health, but that we get an integrated approach whereby we can be as economically active as possible while maintaining the principles around being COVID safe. At some point I am sure you will have Kevin Fenton from PHE talking to you, but he talks very much and very coherently about how we need to learn how to live with COVID because COVID is going to be here for some time. We have to do that living with COVID bit and that means being COVID safe but it also means trying to get life back to as normal as possible, albeit for most of us it does not feel particularly normal as it stands.

Unmesh Desai AM: Just a point that I would note again is that, clearly, local authorities, I would put to you, have a very important role to play making sure that whatever lockdown restrictions there are, they are observed. To use the example of Barking and Dagenham again, just in the last few days they have closed down two establishments because of people not observing restrictions, wearing of face masks and so on. Is there a way of sharing good practice? There is an uneven approach, I have noticed, between authorities that I monitor and observe.

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes, there is on several levels, Assembly Member. One is, clearly, in terms of the sub-regions, and they do meet and they do exchange good practice. There are also some boroughs who are leading on some of the work strands particularly around this. There are also the professional networks, things like the London Environment Directors’ Network (LEDNet), which brings together the environmental health officers from the boroughs, which is one of the professions, as it were, within local government that would be specifically looking at the premises management side. There are also other initiatives being taken on a London level, for example, a COVID scheme that has almost the scores on the doors and allows businesses to go through a COVID checklist and then environmental health will back them up in terms of saying, “We are ready and we are taking the right precautions within our own premises”. Southwark, the City [of London] and Camden are participating in a pilot for that, which, again, is designed to get a degree of uniformity across the system and across businesses. You are absolutely right. Various means are being used to do exactly that.

Unmesh Desai AM: Chair, I will move on to my second question, but I must say, John, I do like and there is merit in what you said about having a sub-regional approach. That is something that has, for me, come out very strongly from the session so far for us to think about.

My second and last question, Chair: when did it become apparent that the challenge had changed from deaths in hospitals to social care settings and what did you do about it?

Page 59 John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): That became clear as it became a national story, to be honest with you, as the numbers coming through the system and the hospital admissions started to increase. It really is one for health and it is one better directed, to be honest with you, at the NHS and to PHE representatives. It is something that we would have seen and did see as part of the coordinating group and did ask for comment from colleagues in health but, to be really clear, we do not take responsibility for agencies. What we are trying to do is coordinate the response so that the information flows between them and that they coordinate their activity for the benefit of Londoners. It was certainly raised as a concern when the data started to show an increase in deaths in care homes. It was raised at the SCG and passed to the NHS and PHE to pick up and deal with.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Just to be clear, John, in my own mind, the bit that was passed to the NHS was about PPE coming down because they were the main distributors of that, was it not?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Local government went into the private market to get their own. The real problem in London is we have a disparity between boroughs. Some boroughs may have 200 old people’s homes - that may be an exaggeration - and some may have 12. That is a big task for local government to divert and support a strategic sector that was under stress, if that is the right word in that sense.

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): That is very fair and the consequence of that, if I can, Chair, is that, clearly, the mortality that we saw was disproportionate in some boroughs [compared] to others given the demographics and given the care homes. That then caused us to go back to work through what that meant in terms of mortality management and how that played out in terms of the boroughs and their responsibilities. The lead for that piece of work is Paul Najsarek [Chief Executive for the London Borough of Ealing], and he leads for that for the London adult [social services].

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Paul leads for the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and is currently working with PHE on exactly this. He would be useful, maybe, for the Committee to hear from in due course.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): There are a number of things we might want to pick up in terms of who we go back to and are best directed to and to see how they dealt with some of those issues. They were clearly key and you have taken some of those lessons on. We should not see a repeat. It should not be a surprise. The threat is clear. The need is clear of what we need to do and how we can minimise that threat. Actions can be taken. It does require different people to play their parts. Is that correct?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): I am now going to go to Assembly Member Caroline Russell for some questions.

Caroline Russell AM: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I want to pick up on something that has been touched on briefly earlier. How has London responded to the mental health and wellbeing issues arising from the easing of

Page 60 lockdown restrictions? That is to all three of you, really. I am not sure who in your teamwork approach to things would be the best to pick that up.

Eleanor Kelly (Chief Executive, Southwark Council and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I can start. Research from PHE, Thrive London and the Centre for Mental Health has shown, as you will be aware, that the situation created by COVID-19 has increased poor mental health and psychological distress across London. We know that there has been a widening of mental health inequalities and that groups who had the poorest mental health before the crisis have had the largest deterioration in mental health during lockdown. For example, researchers identified specific groups of people facing high risks, including people with existing mental health or physical health conditions, older Londoners who might be isolated, black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) Londoners, young Londoners aged 18 to 24 particularly where they are unemployed, pregnant women and single parents, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) Londoners, children and young people particularly those from low-income families, from BAME backgrounds, with young carers and those bereaved by COVID. You can see already that there is a huge number of people just by that list in terms of people who are affected.

The Mayor has responsibilities for health inequalities and mental health, and the stigma around mental health in particular falls into this. The Mayor has done quite a lot to support Londoners during this time. One of the things that he did quite powerfully was to talk about the impact of the pandemic on his own mental health. He has led discussions and has met regularly with London’s mental health leaders and launched a Mental Health Action Plan to respond to the rise in mental health. This is also something that it would benefit this Committee to talk to PHE about as well.

Caroline Russell AM: This is a related question but I do not know if you have any more that you would like to add on addressing the adverse impacts of continued homework and also the lack of social contact for these vulnerable groups. I am thinking in particular of young adults with learning disabilities and some of the groups that were not picked up in the immediate impact of addressing the pandemic.

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): It is a difficult call because you have to get the balance right. While some people have welcomed the opportunity to work from home, for a lot of people getting back to the office is a blessed relief. That counts for people with mental health issues. For people who are suffering from domestic abuse, it is also not a refuge to necessarily spend more time at home. All of these things come into play when you start talking about when people go back to offices or other workplaces and how that is managed.

Quite a lot of these issues will be played out through the work on mental health that is being done through the recovery strand of work as well. That is something else that the Committee might like to look into. There is a range of people who are affected adversely because of the hugely abnormal situation. It touches pretty much everybody in some way. There would be very few people who could honestly hand on heart say that they have not been adversely affected in some way by the pandemic at various stages. It is about making sure that everybody is aware of that and particularly mindful about those people who might be working with them and articulate the issues. While it is easy for us to say that it is great working at home and for many of us it has worked well, for many others and at various points it does not work with that increased sense of isolation. When you have younger people who basically sleep in a room, have been working in a room and have been socialising online in a room for many months, it is really important for us to promote the risks that poses for those individuals in how we talk about the pandemic and the pros and cons of homework versus coming back to the office but also in terms of how we set policies and look at what recovery looks like going forward.

Caroline Russell AM: Thank you.

Page 61

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. I want to bring in now Assembly Member Susan Hall.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): It is just a quick one, really. This is for John if possible. I believe there is an issue on regarding payment - or was - for the temporary mortuary services used during the first wave. If we do get a second wave, what do you have in place to deal with a possible situation around that?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): The provision of mortuary capacity is the responsibility of local government and the local councils. Westminster City Council has made proposals to the other boroughs to take responsibility for mortality management. It is fair to say that it is not simply a case of public mortuaries or excess death mortuaries, if we put it that way. It is also the entire system of private funeral directors and NHS mortuaries, as well as ordinary existing public mortuaries.

Yes, there are plans in place and ready. If we had to, we could stand those mortuaries up straight away. Bluntly, we would do that and sort out the financials later. It is more important to get this right for families and to treat if there were deceased people with respect and so on. Personally - and I should not say this in a public forum - it is a second-order issue to get the finances resolved. We have to get the solution done first. There are plans and progress is being made to make sure that those plans are robust if there were to be a second wave.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK. Thanks very much and thank you for taking some of us around the facilities you have recently. That was very interesting and amazing how well it was working. Thank you very much.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Before we go into the final section - we have about six questions on the final section - there were a couple of issues and a couple of points I want us to pick up. We will be writing back to you, but I am aware that the next eight to 12 weeks will probably be a pretty crucial time, I suspect, and so do not think you have to rush back and respond. We will get a letter off to you about some of the issues that have come up in this session, including - and I know they are matters for policing but they have a direct bearing on the next eight to 12 weeks - the issue of enforcement or lack of enforcement, as maybe others have observed, over that initial period with mixed messages given at different times around issues. Of course, there are warnings, no one expects not to, but we have now a set of circumstances where everyone should be fully aware of their responsibilities to not only their family members but others. On those issues, we will write further on enforcement.

Let us move into where we are now and moving into this next phase of work and the capacity or the organisation that we have to take us forward over this challenging period of time. I am going to ask Assembly Member Onkar Sahota to lead the questions.

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: These questions relate to the disbanding of the SCG and the establishment of the London Transition Management Group. First of all, who made the decision to change the governance arrangements for London’s response to COVID-19?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): It is probably me making a recommendation to the Mayor that the SCG had reached the end of its usefulness, bluntly, as the curve started to decline and a number of issues started to become permanent fixtures on the agenda, like, for an example, how we get business back in, what transport looks like, how the health service is going to cope with the backlog and so on. The issues, bluntly, are not

Page 62 about response in that sense. There needed to be a different mechanism. The Secretary of State and the Mayor decided that the Transition Group and the Transition Board would be the way to do that and would also allow us to involve people from different sectors, for example, the business sector represented by London First, by City UK and by the New West End Company who were directly affected along with Transport for London along with CBS [Outdoor] for an example. It was a decision of natural end, if I am honest.

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: You may have already partially answered this question but how will the new arrangements better prepare us from now onward and particularly if there is another second wave upsurge?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): My experience over 20-odd years - and Eleanor’s for as long, if not a bit longer - of looking at events like this is that a key reason why you are able to manage things well is knowledge of the individuals you are working with and so you know the individual strengths and weaknesses and you build a very strong professional relationship with them. The benefit of the Transition Management Group is we have kept together that expertise around COVID and how London works. That is going to be important going forward to some other events that may be on the horizon as well. That then allows us to step very quickly back into ‘operational mode’ should we need to do so and having agreed a set of criteria that are reviewed every week to know when we are likely to need to go back into a different arrangement.

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: Great. Thank you, John.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. If we can move on to Assembly Member Caroline Russell?

Caroline Russell AM: Yes. I just want to know how will the work of the Transition Board’s strategy groups differ from the workstreams that were identified under the SCG or will they differ?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): They were initiated from the SCG. They have developed over time. An example would be Sir David Sloman [London Regional Director, NHS England] looking after the health subgroup. David would not have involved in the SCG, bluntly - he is far too strategic, if I am honest, whereas he would when it comes to the health system in London and its need to recover, as it were, in the short term from the initial COVID piece. It started with that and continues. In fact, in today’s agenda for the Transition Group, we have a set of items from those working groups underneath the group to flag issues they want to raise back to the Board. We are starting to move from the response piece back into those groups.

Caroline Russell AM: Who is now making the ultimate decisions on London’s response to COVID-19?

Dr Fiona Twycross AM (Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): There is an element of consensus which is missing from the direction of some of the questions, not just this question but earlier. We have to have consensus around some of the key decisions we have. Once we ended the SCG and started with the Transition Management Group and Management Board, one of the reasons we wanted to have things in place of this nature was to make sure that - and it is not always possible to make consensus and to some extent we need to agree that there are points at which we are going to disagree - that as far as possible everybody needs their voice heard and as far as possible we should get consensus.

That is why, as John mentioned, you get key representatives of business who would not normally be in that sort of space in terms of the broader resilience response. You get every single level of the Government and you get the Mayor and the Secretary of State and the Chair of London councils chairing the key groupings so

Page 63 that you make sure that you get that dialogue at every single level and you can get consensus within the system, if you like.

Caroline Russell AM: Thank you.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Can I come back on that point? I have listened carefully to that and it goes back to the very conversation that we had earlier on in the first part when we talked about responsibilities. I am right that democracy matters in a democratic issue and politicians matter around that, but John is also right that in times of crisis officers should take the appropriate role and the politicians should be very clear about the commissioning of issues and allow you to get on to do what you need to do to protect people.

Coming back on that, the whole thing about the Transition Board it is clear to me by the issue of the Co-Chairs, politicians are much more clearly involved in that direction of travel of the SCG than maybe before. There is a question of whether it is more transparent and I quite like that in some ways rather than always influencing your work on the SCG but in a less transparent way. There are some issues there, but this idea that - and I am not suggesting you did, Fiona, suggest this - but there is a hierarchy and at the end of the day someone has to take the decision.

Some of our enforcement decisions in the past have not been coherent or clear, which is going to lead to a lot of problems in this next stage when enforcement decisions need to be clearer. That is what the Government was trying to do with its announcement yesterday. It is a difficult one because of the mixed messages we were given in the earlier stages. We have not been consistent. These are all going to be tested in the coming 12 weeks depending on the way COVID-19 develops in London and across the rest of the country. That is going to be one of the challenges.

We have to get the governance responsibilities right with the operational responsibilities and allow professionals to do what they do. Politicians are important actually at the fore but, equally, we politicians need to give clearer messages. At all levels, at regional, at Government and at local government level, sometimes we have not been that clear. We can all put the blame on each other but, consistently, there could be some blame on each part of our elements about being very clear and consistent about what is required and what is not required. We live in a democratic society and it is not easy, but there is a time when we need to be a little bit more forceful about the asks that we are trying to do when we are trying to save people’s lives or trying to contain this virus.

I am now going to move on to Assembly Member Joanne McCartney.

Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you. Looking at the London Transition Management Group, can I just ask - perhaps this is for John to start with - how that group will respond adequately and perhaps even more robustly in the face of a second wave in which excess deaths may occur? Have you learnt the lessons and what is going to change?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): I would be expected to say the answer is yes, would I not? There is a bit more substance to that in the sense that we have, as we said earlier, the sub-regional representation on there directly with the boroughs. They have individual leads for particular strands of work and we are not starting now from a position where the streets are completely empty and we have no staff we can call upon. They are materially different.

Page 64 We also now understand a little bit more about how the health system is functioning and who is doing what to who. We have an intelligence cell that produces a weekly commonly recognised information picture called a common recognised information picture (CRIP). Basically, it is pulling together all of the information, the risks that individual agencies and themes are seeing in their work, whether they are red amber green (RAG), effectively, and also a timetable of events that are happening to start giving us, if you will, a horizon scan of issues that may become important for that group to look at.

All of that preparation is ongoing. It is not standing down. I would not recommend to the Mayor or the Secretary of State that we stop that for a while yet. If anything, the tempo of that may increase over the next few weeks from being a weekly to a somewhat more frequent meeting albeit virtual or physical.

Joanne McCartney AM: OK. Local authorities who were delivering a lot of this work on the ground pulled in staff from elsewhere and local authorities are starting to get back to business as usual. Do they have the resources and the bandwidth to deliver what they need to deliver for statutory functions but also in the case of a second wave?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): One of the areas that we have asked for work on is the risk around maintenance of core services within local government. That is not only local government. That is things like, for example, the care sector and so on. It does get flagged as a risk if there is a second wave of the resourcing for some of those core areas, yes, but that is, again, one better directed at local government.

Joanne McCartney AM: OK. Fine. Then you have talked a lot throughout about partnership working. This has been a great exercise in partnership working not only with organisational stakeholders but also with the voluntary sector as well. I suppose, moving forward, do you think there are any silos still to be broken down where that partnership work can improve?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): Yes, there are. One of the things I would be pushing for is a better understanding and involvement of the faith sector and voluntary community sector in this. There are huge lessons for us in terms of the faith sector and how that probably was not underused but under-involved, particularly given - again, back to an earlier question - the benefit of having very direct involvement with some parts of the faith sector into communities that at first sight may have made a difference to infection.

Joanne McCartney AM: OK. That is helpful. In my role as Deputy Mayor for Education, I am aware of some of this work, but if you could speak perhaps a bit broader? You have said that the work of the strategy groups has now started up under this new management structure, but have all the SCG’s workstreams been disbanded? How is the management group planning to maintain that immediate response role while also focusing on the long-term recovery? I know there is a Recovery Board but there is going to be some crossover between the two. How are you dealing with that?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): In terms of the ability to step back up, that will be part of the conversation this afternoon in our meeting. We have the core group, anyway, which would form the nucleus of a SCG should it be required. There is clearly work also going on in terms of what a step up would look like in London should the numbers start to move very adversely in the wrong direction, how that would work and how we would maintain it. It is back to the Chair’s point around the political oversight and the responsibility for that.

Page 65 In terms of the longer-term work, which is the one you are talking around, Peter John [Leader, Southwark Council and Chair, London Councils] leads on the education subgroup, as you are aware, and that work would continue regardless, in truth. In my mind, the work programme may change depending on circumstance but what has been brought together are the key influencers and - if I can use the word with a small T - talent in that sense around education as a restart function that can be kicked off a second, third and fourth time. Once you create the group, it is always best if it has work to do to keep it going because there will be new things that arise over time.

Joanne McCartney AM: Broadening it out, that is the case for all your workstreams?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): It is, yes.

Joanne McCartney AM: On my point about issues that the Transition Management Group or the Transition Board might consider, they are also going to be relevant to the recovery because some of these pieces of work will run from your group into the Recovery Board. Are those links well established?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): By dint of two things. One is the support from the GLA and agencies within the Authority itself, providing secretariat and support for both groups. There is the common membership, bluntly, of the Recovery Board and the Transition Board itself and a willingness that we cannot keep doing response forever. Eleanor and Fiona and I are based on Duracell batteries and at some point we do need to either be replaced or be recharged, I guess. There is a piece here about the relevant points of handover when it ceases to become a response piece to the long-term in six, 12, 18 and 24 months and what the future of London looks like. I am the worst person to ask about that.

Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you. Can I take it that your workstreams are flexible and may well change?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): By definition - which people get infuriated about - they have to be because things change.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): I now need just to bring in Assembly Member Andrew Boff.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you very much. The other day I thought I would go into Barking and I had a cup of coffee at a pavement café. It was like staring at a petri dish. It was as though none of the messaging had worked at all. People were shaking hands with vague acquaintances. People were coughing in the street. You would have believed that we were actually in February rather than where we are today, having experienced the pandemic. As I looked around - and this was very near to Barking Town Hall - there were a number of advertising hoardings that were completely empty. It made me wonder what on earth is being done about coordinating the messaging not just between boroughs but between the public themselves. As was alluded to earlier by the Deputy Mayor, some people find some of the messaging a little difficult to follow.

What role will the Transition Board have in ensuring that we have a coordinated message?

John Barradell (Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co-Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Group): We have a secondee or a person, rather, funded - that is probably more accurate - by the Government to assist in pulling together a communications workstream. There is work to be done to make sure that there is consistency. One of the messages we have had loud and clear from business

Page 66 and from councils right the way through to the Mayor and the Government is that we have to have a single message. We cannot have different messages in different places. There has to be a simple, straightforward line. That comes particularly from business, if I am honest, Assembly Member. The Deputy Mayor may talk to the work of the GLA and the Mayor’s office here, but London Councils has also been doing some coordinating work. The risk with that is that it becomes local and is not a single communication message. We are constantly in that balance between the two.

Your point about empty advertising hoardings is one I will make a note of and we will challenge that this afternoon with sub-regional colleagues about the use of empty spaces. It is certainly one we have asked TfL to look at as well to make sure that, as the numbers start returning onto public transport, we use that opportunity as well to get messaging across.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Can I just check with all Assembly Members? Are there any further questions that need to be asked? Then at this point, can I thank all three of you? Look, I cannot thank you enough for the work that you do, but I know there is a whole number of people from both the public and the private sector trying to help to make sure that we are safe during this pandemic and minimising the risk. I hope that during the meetings that you can convey that. The Chair of the Assembly is here but I think it would be from all Assembly Members thanking you for your work in that past phase but also knowing that you face a difficult challenge in the coming weeks and months as well. We want you to do well in that. We wish you well because that is important to us in terms of the safety of Londoners. Thank you for the work that you are doing and please pass it on to other colleagues if you can on our behalf.

We will now leave this session. We will come back to you. I will try to make that email to you as gentle as possible in our requests but, as I said, we are not expecting an immediate response from you. Thank you very much for the way you have answered our questions today.

Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 68 Appendix 3

GLA Oversight Committee – Wednesday 9 September 2020

Transcript of Item 6 – COVID-19: GLA Staff Response

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Now can we move to the next panel that we have? This is where we focus on the actual Greater London Authority (GLA) contribution not just to the Strategic Coordination Group (SCG) but to COVID work in general. It is about the contribution they made to the SCG. I welcome, then, our next set of guests, which is led by Mary Harpley, Chief Officer at the GLA; Niran Mothada, Executive Director Strategy and Communications here at the GLA; Rickardo Hyatt, Interim Deputy Executive Director, Housing and Land, GLA; Charmaine DeSouza, Assistant Director, Human Resources and Organisational Development, GLA; and Sarah Mulley.

We have a set of questions. Mary, would you like to do an opening statement or would you prefer to go straight into questions?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): All I would say, Chair, is that I hope the paper that I submitted in advance has been helpful context for the discussion. We are happy to go straight into questions.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. Thank you for that. I am now going to move to Assembly Member Susan Hall to lead off with the questions.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Mary, how many GLA staff were seconded to support the SCG?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): It is what you mean by seconded; formal secondments we have a few. Those have evolved over time and Niran can give a better indication of formal secondments. In terms of people who were ‘parachuted’ in to help in a way - I heard John Barradell talking earlier about “just getting on with it” in the beginning - we have had a couple of hundred people in some way or another supporting the work of the SCG. We can talk to either of those, Assembly Member Hall. Formal secondments, very few, although we have some formal secondments now into the transition and recovery structures.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK, how many formal secondments in the first place?

Niran Mothada (Executive Director, Strategy and Communications, Greater London Authority): Assembly Member Susan Hall, we had approximately three or four formal secondments. Alice Reeves [Deputy Chief Resilience Officer, GLA] was one of those who was seconded into the Intelligence Cell. When we had the Mortuary Group, we had two people seconded to work on mortuary planning formally in the SCG. I can write back on the others. I cannot remember them off the top of my head in terms of formal people that we put in for the duration.

The other thing I would say is that Fiona Twycross [Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience] in the Fire Resilience Team - so the Resilience Team in particular, which was Tom Layfield [Senior Advisor to the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills, GLA] and his team - were working, and have been working, on response and transition fulltime for the duration of the pandemic.

Page 69 Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK. That adds up to the other 197, does it, just from that team?

Niran Mothada (Executive Director, Strategy and Communications, Greater London Authority): No, so the 197 are people who have been working on response and also on transition now. Those are people who have been inputting - you will see from Mary’s paper - a great deal into the subgroups and the cells that were established as part of the SCG.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK, fine, thank you. How did we monitor their work and evaluate what they were doing, Mary?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): The formal secondees or the bigger group?

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): The bigger group, we are only talking about three or four secondees so the other one.

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): The first thing to say is that we were very clear from the beginning that supporting the work of the SCG was an absolute priority for the GLA, and therefore for us as the senior team, to make sure that the SCG was properly supported. As that structure developed - in the way you have heard earlier this morning from Fiona [Twycross], John [Barradell] and Eleanor [Kelly] - we remained in extremely close contact to make sure that the resource that was required behind those cells and subgroups was provided. Some of that, as we know, happened very quickly in real time. By the beginning of April we had begun to put some structure around that and some resource.

If I might, Rickardo or Sarah, who are here because they sit on top of the directorates that provided most of the teams into this effort, could bring to light one or two examples about how that worked, how perhaps the Food Team supported or the Rough Sleeping Team supported and then were monitored. If that is helpful, that is where we should take this.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Rickardo and Sarah were in charge of the teams of people who belong to us, if you like, and were out there doing the work?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): Sarah, I think it would be good if you could explain how that worked.

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): Yes. Mary has mentioned food, which is a good example. As you know, the GLA has some ongoing programmes around food, so we have some staff who have expertise and networks in that area. It became clear very early on in lockdown that food supplies, for example, through foodbanks was becoming a real issue. This was something that was escalated through the SCG process. This is something that the Voluntary Sector Group under the SCG escalated as an issue, particularly coming into the Easter weekend they escalated this issue about food supply to foodbanks. What we were able to do at that point was redeploy staff both from the existing team in the GLA and also from other teams. I think across the period we redeployed eight or ten people, some for very short periods of time and some for longer, to come together and work with partners across the voluntary sector and with business as well to make sure that we could find a solution to the immediate challenge of supplying foodbanks with food. We had trucks out delivering food over the Easter weekend to make sure none of those foodbanks ran out of food.

What the team did after meeting that immediate need was to make sure that we could put on a more sustainable footing the relationships at local levels between boroughs - that were of course supporting

Page 70 populations who were shielding, for example - and local voluntary sector providers. What we ended up with was a network of partnerships at borough level whereby each borough had a strategic partnership with the local voluntary sector to make sure that those connections were being made. That work was coordinated in significant part by this team that was redeployed within City Hall. We did that on a very flexible basis, and as I say we had some people who were redeployed to do that for a matter of days and other people who worked on it for a matter of weeks. That has continued into the transition work. We now have a small team still working to make sure we have that resilience as we go through the transition period. That is a good example and shows that we were able to be responsive when issues were escalated through the SCG.

To your question about how people were accountable and evaluated, the answer is really through the SCG structures in most cases. Issues were escalated, discussed and evaluated at the SCG level and in that case, when that immediate task had been completed, the SCG made a decision that the objectives had been met and the work was deescalated and stood down. I might hand over to Rickardo to talk about --

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): If I can finish with you; that worked well, so well done and thank you for that. How many people do you have permanently in your food department or do we have - I should say - in our food department?

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): Three.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Three regular people and you deployed an extra eight to ten?

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): Yes, at different points.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Yes, OK, fine. I take it, Rickardo, then you had the bulk of the people working under you, did you, if there were 200-odd people?

Rickardo Hyatt (Interim Deputy Executive Director, Housing and Land, Greater London Authority): The Housing Team’s primary involvement in the immediate response was in regards to the emergency accommodation operation to get rough sleepers off the streets. We, within Housing and Land, redeployed around 12 staff to supplement the Rough Sleeping Team which numbers about ten. We more than doubled the team to try to work on the operation to get as many people off the streets as possible. In fact, the operation started in mid-March because we recognised the direction of travel in regards to the spread of the disease and we were able to put a plan in place quite quickly working with local authorities to try to procure the accommodation needed.

The operation has been running for six months. At the top-end point we had in hotels a maximum of about 1,500 people but over the course of the six-month period to September in total we have helped 1,700 people off the streets. That work continues because clearly we are still in the midst of the pandemic. We are now looking to how we can help each person who leaves the service to ensure they do not return to the street.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): That is the most important thing and it is really good work that is going on there. I must have misheard. You said you had ten people join your team?

Rickardo Hyatt (Interim Deputy Executive Director, Housing and Land, Greater London Authority): It was about 12 people. The team itself numbers about ten and at different points up to 12 people were redeployed to support the work of the team and the operation. To flag as well, the team did also input into

Page 71 the SCG structure. There was a Housing Accommodation Group set up to coordinate our efforts with boroughs and other partners in regards to the operation. That was a key strand to the team’s work.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK. At some point will you give some sort of report on how many of those people you have managed to get out of that dreadful situation and back into not living on the streets - however one would put that - because that is thoroughly good work? We look forward to hearing that.

Going back to you, Mary, there are lots of people who have not come under either of these. If they were inputting information - which I imagine for the mortuaries etc was important - who were they under?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): We have only picked, Assembly Member Hall, two examples of the teams. You will see in the paper there were six subgroups, we provided significant numbers of people into five of those. Sarah has talked about food but we had a whole set of people working on funding available to the voluntary sector. We had people working on volunteering and coordinating a huge volunteer effort. We have not touched on the people who we had supporting the Health Subgroup, which was significant. There was a Communication Subgroup, in which a number of our staff played a role. We do not have Phil Graham [Executive Director, Good Growth, GLA] with us today but the whole business impact work of the SCG was one of the subgroups that we led. Luke Bruce, our Interim Head of Economic Development, led that and there were significant numbers of people under him.

As I lay out in the paper, the other piece of this is that there were other teams who were working more directly on the response as well. I am very happy to represent my paper as a table with numbers rather than people, if that is helpful. The 200 come together from, in effect, an effort right across the work of the SCG; that is how we get to it. We have only picked a couple of examples. We could talk to more examples now, if you would like, but the two we have heard are examples of the whole range of teams that we have.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): I would like to get a sample, as I am sure other people would, of what our teams were doing because obviously a lot of our ongoing work stopped, quite frankly. All the people we gave to help, are there any departments you are particularly concerned did not get work done that we needed done for the GLA? Did anything suffer because of that?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): Again, I am going to ask Rickardo and Sarah if they feel that happened and then I will come back with a more general point.

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): The short answer is no. We were able to redeploy people in order to meet this without that having a direct consequence on our wider work. That was possible because there was work which we could not continue during the crisis. It was not so much that were stopping things in order to redeploy people, it was more that there were aspects of our work that we simply could not continue. To take an example, we had a small team of people in my directorate who were working on community activities and volunteering that was planned around the Euro 2020 tournament. The tournament was cancelled. They did some work to resolve that and wind things down in an orderly fashion and to put it on ice for when it comes back, but that team of people were then redeployed to support other priorities. Therefore, yes, there were things that did not get done but certainly on our side that was in large part because of work which could not continue in the way it had been planned during the pandemic.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK, thank you. Rickardo?

Page 72 Rickardo Hyatt (Interim Deputy Executive Director, Housing and Land, Greater London Authority): From a Housing and Land perspective, clearly going into lockdown the construction sector halted altogether. Immediately we put in place a temporary structure whereby within Housing and Land people were assigned to particular partners, housing providers, across the sector to gather intelligence on the impact of the pandemic and to try to understand how we could work with the sector to safeguard delivery and contribute to the recovery on the other side. One early outcome of that immediate work is that we managed to negotiate an extension by a year to the current Affordable Housing Programme by putting forward quite a detailed business case to Government, working in partnership to ensure that the risks that are inherent due to the lockdown would be mitigated to give partners and the sector the confidence to carry on.

In addition to that, just on work that was ongoing, prior to going into lockdown the Government had announced a new Building Safety Fund. I had to deploy people from other parts of the directorate towards that effort, in working with Government to develop the programme to ensure that we were able to launch a funding prospectus in July and to start to attract applications for bids because clearly the ongoing building safety issue and challenges are quite important. That was a key piece of work that we had to keep working on.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK, fine. Remind me how many people are in your directorate, approximately.

Rickardo Hyatt (Interim Deputy Executive Director, Housing and Land, Greater London Authority): There are 210 people, there or thereabouts.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Lovely, that is fine, thank you. Mary, was there anything anywhere that was really put on hold because of what we had to do to assist?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): The obvious thing we put on hold was the Quarter 1 reporting process because, of course, that was due to kick off, as we went into lockdown we had come to the end of Quarter 4. That was with the Assembly’s agreement as well, I spoke to the Chair about this at the time. We felt that with everything that was going on we could not deliver to the original timeframe for that, so that first set of financial and performance reports post-lockdown was a month late. That was deliberate because so many of our people were otherwise engaged.

In summary, it was a mixture of things we could not do - Niran has several examples of that in her area as well, particularly people related to events who were very quickly redeployed - and on the big, finance performance corporate process, the pretty much immediate decision to delay it all by a month to give us all a bit of extra capacity.

Niran Mothada (Executive Director, Strategy and Communications, Greater London Authority): One of the important things was using the skills that we had within the organisation to support the SCG. As Mary said, where events had been stood down we used the team to help us with the procurement, to assist with mortuary planning. It was about using the skill-set that we had and redeploying that where we could.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): OK. What is the GLA’s longer-term strategy to support a pan-London COVID-19 response and how is the experience to date informing this strategy?

Niran Mothada (Executive Director, Strategy and Communications, Greater London Authority): One of the things that has been incredibly important to us is learning lessons from what happened and our response to the pandemic, taking those lessons learnt and now starting to plan for, unfortunately, what may potentially be a second wave. It is about ensuring that we have the systems and processes within the GLA in place to do

Page 73 this and also making sure that people - certainly learning lessons from what happened before - know what would be expected of them if we had to stand up a response once again. We are doing some planning right now with Fiona Twycross, our Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience, and her team in terms of our response.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): Yes, good. She is a good woman and I know she is working hard, so that is good. I am thrilled you have a list of lessons learnt. Can you send me - beg your pardon, Chair - can you send the Committee here a list of your lessons learnt?

Niran Mothada (Executive Director, Strategy and Communications, Greater London Authority): Yes, we can.

Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman): That is good, thank you. I will leave it at that, Chair, thank you.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK, I am going to bring in Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Mary, in May I wrote to you raising concerns about Assistant Director Decision 2448, which approved the spending of up to £20,000 to procure the services of a specialist organisation to manage the in-kind donation strand of the COVID-19 response, taking over from work that GLA officers have been doing. Can you provide us with more details of the organisation that was procured and any further associated costs to the GLA?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): Sarah, are you able to do that?

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): Yes. This was a decision that we took right in the middle of the pandemic. As a little bit of background, one of the roles which the GLA took on was helping to coordinate and trying to effectively direct lots of offers from businesses, from individuals, from all kinds of sources that were coming in from people trying to support the London response effort. A lot of those were coming to the Mayor, coming to City Hall, and so we naturally picked up a role in coordinating those. What became clear as we were doing that work was that although we were able to do a good job of triaging those offers and putting them into the right places we needed to put in places some arrangements that could be a bit more sustainable and to make sure that we tried to get some sort of long-term benefit from this incredible outpouring of generosity. Therefore we made the decision to involve Rocket Science as the organisation to do this because they had the networks across the civil society and voluntary sector. It was to take on some of that day-to-day management of the offers and to help us build some systems. The reason why we got them involved was because we needed somebody who had those networks and existing relationships across London to try to build systems that would have some longevity and to try to make sure that this did not end up being a kind of emergency response.

There were some capacity issues on our side. As Mary said, the GLA was very heavily involved in a lot of work relating to supporting the voluntary and community sector which meant that the officers in the GLA who had that deep sector knowledge and those networks were already fully deployed in managing other bits of the system. This felt like a discrete piece of work that it was sensible to get some extra support on.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Has any more expense, other than £20,000, been spent on this?

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): Not to my knowledge but I can confirm that for you after the session.

Page 74 Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: OK. Why did you not consider trying to use Transport for London (TfL) staff - 7,000 of whom were furloughed - who may have had the right skill-set, who you could have brought in to support this piece of work rather than going out with a contract to tender?

Sarah Mulley (Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, Greater London Authority): We did consider all kinds of options for covering this from within the GLA and from the group. I suppose my answer would be this point about the very specific requirement that we had for people with networks across London’s voluntary sector. Our assessment was that that was what we needed, and because of the nature of the work that TfL colleagues do we did not feel that there was anyone there who would have had those networks.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Thank you very much.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): OK. Are there any other questions from Assembly Members? Can you indicate? OK, I see no indications.

Look, can I just ask a question? Mary, probably for the future - our ongoing efforts to support the Transitional Team will happen - should we not start thinking about creating a cadre of officers at various levels for resilience type issues in emergency situations? I am not saying they have to go around with a high-vis jacket, a badge or a tattoo on their foreheads, but where we know their skillset and that they can operate outside their immediate environment in an emergency type situation, should we not put that in place? It could be part of our volunteering issue. It is not quite volunteering because they would be doing paid work. In times of woe they could be moved into certain circumstances that would be quite challenging, but we know and are confident that they are trained and pre-planned. They know they are not going to be called out in the middle of the night but certainly on recovery issues they could play a role. Is that not something as an organisation we should be considering at this moment? I know we cannot do it for the next eight to 12 weeks. That work will continue where we are. For the future - I am not saying we are going to face another pandemic - there will be other emergencies. As a regional organisation and with our expertise, it is not unreasonable to think that we could offer that to others as a form of support, considering we are the home of resilience, in some sense, as the GLA group. Of course the police are the police and they do their bit, the fire service do their bit and as we have seen and know of have worked outside some of their issues during COVID-19. Transport, sadly, had a number of staff furloughed and so could not transfer staff across in the way that we might have wanted to do.

Could we not consider that? Is it appropriate to think of that or is that not the done thing?

Mary Harpley (Chief Officer, Greater London Authority): Chair, my immediate response to that is that it is a very good idea and something we should think about. Interestingly, one of the key lessons we have learnt is that this event - of course, it is not over yet - touched many, many, many more of our staff than any other previous emergency or crisis. I was not at the GLA of course when the Grenfell Tower [fire] happened, and I know there were quite a lot of staff involved with that. This event has brought in about 250 staff, which is of an order of magnitude greater than any other scale at the GLA in terms of staff being involved. Everybody jumped to it, as I hope you can see and you have heard.

Our challenge became keeping everybody clear on where everybody fitted in, what the SCG was doing, what the Mayor was doing and what we were doing as the corporate management team. That became more of a challenge because so many people had never worked in this sort of crisis structure before. We already have a plan as we get ready for what is coming in the autumn and the winter. Some of those gaps in terms of a broader understanding of the overall command structure, a broader understanding of where people fitted, is already in place as we go into the autumn and winter.

Page 75 Your idea, Chair, takes it to another level, which is saying that now that we have such a wide number of people involved and with a greater sense of what a crisis like this is and what it demands, then we should take your suggestion and think through then, OK, what we can offer further in terms of support to London. Yes, I am very happy to take that on board and to come back at some future point and talk about that.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): Thank you. Once again to colleagues, any further questions on this?

Unmesh Desai AM: Chair, can I just say that there were questions to the earlier panel, if we direct them to the officers after we are done? Of course, we do not expect them as soon as possible given the pressures on them. However, because of time there were some questions that some of us could not ask.

Len Duvall AM (Chair): That is a good point. We will come back and look at that and check with Assembly Members because there may well be some reflections on what has been said. We may write to you further about the way you have answered some of the questions.

Thank you very much for this part of the session and thank you all for your work and the contribution you have made during the COVID-19 period.

Page 76 Agenda Item 4

Subject: Summary List of Actions

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 October 2020

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report updates the Committee on the progress made on actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee notes the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee and correspondence sent and received.

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 9 September 2020

Item Topic Action Action By

4 Summary List of Actions

That authority be delegated to the Chair, in In progress. Senior Policy consultation with party Group Lead Members and Advisor Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree a letter to Transport for London requesting further information regarding the Silvertown Tunnel.

6 COVID-19: Phase 1 and the GLA Staff Response

During the course of the discussion, John Barradell, In progress. Chief Executive, Chief Executive, City of London Corporation and Co- City of London Chair, London Resilience Strategic Coordination Corporation and Group undertook to: Co-Chair of the • Provide further detail on the partner working SCG arrangements of the Strategic Coordination Group and complexities in managing those arrangements; and

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk

Page 77

• Raise the issue of empty advertising hoarding with sub-regional colleagues and the use of empty space for messaging, on behalf of Andrew Boff AM.

Dr Fiona Twycross, Deputy Mayor, Fire and Resilience and Co-Chair of the London Resilience In progress. Deputy Mayor, Strategic Coordination Group agreed to provide the Fire and Committee with the lessons learned for the strategic Resilience, and coordination of COVID-19 and the role and Co-Chair of the functioning of the London resilience Forum (LRF). SCG

Eleanor Kelly, Chief Executive Southwark Council and Co-Chair of the Strategic Coordination Group, In progress. Eleanor Kelly, committed to enquire with London Council’s as to Chief Executive, the publication of its review into the lessons learned Southwark by London boroughs and formal request it is shared Council and with the Committee. Co-Chair of the SCG During the course of the discussion Niran Mothada, Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, In progress. Executive undertook to provide details of GLA Staff placed on Director, formal secondment as a result of the GLA COVID-19 Strategy and response, and provide the lessons learned from the Communications GLA response to COVID-19.

Mary Harpley, Chief Officer undertook to: In progress. Chief Officer • Provide the total numbers of supporting GLA staff and the areas they were working in to assist with COVID-19 response; and • Discuss at a later date ongoing resilience measures and the mobilisation of GLA staff in future crises.

Sarah Mulley, Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence agreed to confirm whether any further In progress. Executive expense was incurred to procure the services of a Director, specialist organisation to manage the in-kind Communities and donation strand of the COVID-19 response. Intelligence

The Committee requested a report on the numbers of people supported by GLA Staff from rough In progress. Interim Deputy sleeping into accommodation. Executive Director, Housing and Land

Page 78

That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members and In progress. Senior Policy Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output Advisor arising from the meeting.

7 GLA Pay Award

The Committee requested: Chief Officer Completed – • Confirmation of the outcome of the pay award and negotiations with Unison and; Attached at Appendix 1-2.

• Confirmation of the implementation of a In progress. working group.

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 21 July 2020

Item Topic Action Action By

8 Relocation from City Hall

That authority be delegated to the Chair, in In progress. Senior Policy consultation with party Group Lead Members and Advisor Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output from the discussion at the meeting.

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 20 May 2020

Item Topic Action Action By

3 COVID-19

That authority be delegated to the Chair, in In progress. Senior Policy consultation with party Group Lead Members and Advisor Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output from the discussion.

Page 79

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 7 May 2020

Item Topic Action Action By

3 COVID-19

That authority be delegated to the Chair, in In progress. Senior Policy consultation with party Group Lead Members and Advisor Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output from the discussion.

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 23 January 2020

Item Topic Action Action By

4 Summary List of Actions

That authority be delegated to the Chair, In progress – Executive Len Duvall AM in consultation with party Group Lead Presently on hold. Director of Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to progress Secretariat, or his further work of the Committee in relation to the deputy, as Mayor’s Review of London & Partners. Proper Officer

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 17 December 2019

Item Topic Action Action By

11 London Assembly Work Programme January - March 2020

The Committee requested:

• That pay conditions for GLA staff be added to In progress. Senior Policy the GLA Oversight Committee Work Adviser Programme; and

• That the separate GLA Oversight Committee In progress. investigation into Jennifer Arcuri be added to the work programme.

Page 80

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 16 October 2019

Item Topic Action Action By

9 Smart Working Policy – Consultation Feedback

The Chief Officer agreed to write to Members of the In progress. Chief Officer Committee following her meeting with Followed up - the staff disability network. 29/09/2020.

16 London & Partners Funding of the Innotech Foundation & Playbox Ltd And Associated Matters

That authority be delegated to the Chair of the In progress. Executive GLA Oversight Committee, in consultation with the Director of Deputy Chairman and lead Members from other party Secretariat, or his groups, to correspond with (in accordance with the deputy, as advice of the Executive Director of Secretariat, or his Proper Officer deputy, as Proper Officer):

(i) solicitors for the Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson MP; (ii) the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC); and (iii) any other relevant parties

in relation to the matters that are the subject of the report.

Actions Arising from the Meeting held on 8 April 2019

Item Topic Action Action By

9 London Assembly Work on Grenfell Tower Fire

The Committee requested that a watching brief be In progress. The Assistant kept on any further work that might be required by Scrutiny team will Director of the Assembly in Phase 2 of the hearings into the follow the hearings Scrutiny and Grenfell Tower Fire. as they take place. Investigations

Page 81

3. Correspondence

3.1 On the 26 August 2020, the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee wrote to the Chief Finance Officers of the Greater London Authority (GLA), GLA Functional Bodies1 and the Metropolitan Police Service, on the respective budget position for each authority. The letters that were sent are attached at Appendices 3 – 8 and Appendix 14. The responses received from each authority are attached at Appendices 9 – 13 and Appendix 15.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Correspondence from the GLA UNISON to the Chief Officer, dated 15 September 2020 Appendix 2 – Correspondence from the Chief Officer to GLA UNISON, dated 16 September 2020 Appendix 3 – Letter to the Chief Finance Officer, Transport for London (TfL), dated 26 August 2020 Appendix 4 – Letter to the Chief Finance Officer, Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime MOPAC) dated 26 August 2020 Appendix 5 – Letter to the Director of Corporate Services, London Fire Commissioner (LFC), dated 26 August 2020 Appendix 6 – Letter to the Executive Director of Financial, Commercial and Corporate Services, London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), dated 26 August 2020 Appendix 7 – Letter to the Chief Finance Officer, Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), dated 26 August 2020 Appendix 8 – Letter to Director of Finance, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), dated 27 August 2020 Appendix 9 – Response from the Assistant Director – Finance, LFC, dated 4 September 2020 Appendix 10 – Response from the Chief Finance Officer, OPDC, dated 4 September 2020 Appendix 11 – Response from the Chief Finance Officer, MOPAC and Director of Finance, MPS, dated 4 September 2020 Appendix 12 – Response from the Deputy Chief Executive, LLDC, dated 4 September 2020 Appendix 13 – Response from Chief Finance Officer, TfL, dated 4 September 2020 Appendix 14 – Letter to the Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority (GLA), dated 26 August 2020 Appendix 15 – Response from the Chief Finance Officer, GLA, dated 4 September 2020

1 The GLA Functional Bodies, known collectively as the GLA Group are: Transport for London; Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime; London Fire Commissioner; London Legacy Development Corporation and; Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation. Page 82

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager Telephone: 020 8039 1285 Email: [email protected]

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84 Appendix 1

City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA

Date: 15 September 2020

Dear Mary,

2020 - 2021 Pay Claim

Thank you for your letter in response to our counter claim.

Our Branch Committee has considered your revised offer of a 2% pay rise for staff at Grades 1-7 and has voted in favour of acceptance.

We also welcome the written commitment to a pay scale working group and look forward to commencing discussions at the earliest opportunity.

Whilst we appreciate that the current financial climate is challenging, it is nevertheless disappointing that the pay of so many colleagues will once again fail to keep pace with inflation. Should the anticipated budget savings not be required, we trust that you will take this year’s real terms pay cut into consideration when negotiations for 2021 commence.

We note with disappointment your decision not to grant staff an additional day off on 24th December.

We further note the way in which negotiations were conducted this year, where the Oversight Committee were consulted on an offer whilst negotiations were still ongoing, and the offer which was put to them was not one we’d previously had sight of. GLA UNISON want to approach negotiations in a constructive spirit and we ask that in future years this approach is reciprocated.

Regards

Sally Russell Rachel Barker Branch Secretary Chair GLA UNISON GLA UNISON

Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 86 Appendix 2 Chief Officer

City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk

Branch Secretary and Chair GLA Unison

By email 16/09/2020

2020-2021 Pay Claim

Dear Sally and Rachel

Many thanks for your letter of yesterday confirming your Branch Committee's acceptance of my revised offer of a 2% pay rise for GLA staff at Grades 1-7.

I share your regret that I was not able to offer staff more in our current, challenging financial context. I am not at all convinced that our anticipated savings will not be required, but if the situation were to change I will take this into account as we start our negotiations next year.

I absolutely take your point about last week's Oversight Committee. Given we have had to delay considering your claim for so many weeks, I was anxious to ensure there would be no further additional delay to reaching an agreement, given my obligation to consult the Committee, and so was trying to work within scheduled Committee dates. There is not another scheduled meeting of the Oversight Committee until November. But trying to cover this item at the meeting last week created the issues you highlight. If the same or a similar situation arises again, I will find a different way of handling this. It was never my intention to conduct these negotiations in anything other than a constructive spirit.

Now we have reached an agreement, I will arrange for these uplifts to be paid, backdated to 1 April, in the October payroll. My intention is to communicate this outcome next week to staff in my Core Brief.

I want to thank you both -- and your Committee members -- for your constructive approach to these negotiations.

Kind regards

Mary Harpley Chief Officer Greater London Authority

Direct telephone: 020 7983 4959 Email: [email protected] Page 87

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 88 Appendix 3

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk Simon Kilonback Chief Finance Officer Transport for London

(Sent via email) 26 August 2020

Dear Simon,

Budget Position for your Authority

As you will be aware, and as the Mayor’s Budget Guidance issued in June 2020 made clear, the GLA Group is facing unprecedented financial challenges.

Given that context, Assembly Members would be grateful if you could provide a copy of the financial advice which you have prepared for your authority and/or circulated to your Deputy Mayor on your current and impending budget position, in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

We are particularly interested in the degree of reliance your authority has on GLA funding streams and what approach you are advocating in that regard.

I would be grateful if you could respond by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:89 [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 90 Appendix 4

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk Jo Moore Chief Finance Officer Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)

(Sent via email) 26 August 2020

Dear Jo,

Budget Position for your Authority

As you will be aware, and as the Mayor’s Budget Guidance issued in June 2020 made clear, the GLA Group is facing unprecedented financial challenges.

Given that context, Assembly Members would be grateful if you could provide a copy of the financial advice which you have prepared for your authority and/or circulated to your Deputy Mayor on your current and impending budget position, in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

We are particularly interested in the degree of reliance your authority has on GLA funding streams and what approach you are advocating in that regard.

I would be grateful if you could respond by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:91 [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 92 Appendix 5

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk Sue Budden Director of Corporate Services London Fire Commissioner (LFC)

(Sent via email) 26 August 2020

Dear Sue,

Budget Position for your Authority

As you will be aware, and as the Mayor’s Budget Guidance issued in June 2020 made clear, the GLA Group is facing unprecedented financial challenges.

Given that context, Assembly Members would be grateful if you could provide a copy of the financial advice which you have prepared for your authority and/or circulated to your Deputy Mayor on your current and impending budget position, in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

We are particularly interested in the degree of reliance your authority has on GLA funding streams and what approach you are advocating in that regard.

I would be grateful if you could respond by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:93 [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 94 Appendix 6

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Gerry Murphy Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Executive Director of Financial, Commercial and Corporate Web: www.london.gov.uk Services

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC)

(Sent via email) 26 August 2020

Dear Gerry,

Budget Position for your Authority

As you will be aware, and as the Mayor’s Budget Guidance issued in June 2020 made clear, the GLA Group is facing unprecedented financial challenges.

Given that context, Assembly Members would be grateful if you could provide a copy of the financial advice which you have prepared for your authority and/or circulated to your Deputy Mayor on your current and impending budget position, in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

We are particularly interested in the degree of reliance your authority has on GLA funding streams and what approach you are advocating in that regard.

I would be grateful if you could respond by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:95 [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 96 Appendix 7

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Fiona Marsh Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Chief Finance Officer Web: www.london.gov.uk Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC)

(Sent via email)

26 August 2020

Dear Fiona,

Budget Position for your Authority

As you will be aware, and as the Mayor’s Budget Guidance issued in June 2020 made clear, the GLA Group is facing unprecedented financial challenges.

Given that context, Assembly Members would be grateful if you could provide a copy of the financial advice which you have prepared for your authority and/or circulated to your Deputy Mayor on your current and impending budget position, in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

We are particularly interested in the degree of reliance your authority has on GLA funding streams and what approach you are advocating in that regard.

I would be grateful if you could respond by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:97 [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Appendix 8

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk Ian Percival London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Director of Finance Web: www.london.gov.uk Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

(Sent via email)

27 August 2020 Dear Ian,

Budget Position for your Authority

As you will be aware, and as the Mayor’s Budget Guidance issued in June 2020 made clear, the GLA Group is facing unprecedented financial challenges.

Given that context, Assembly Members would be grateful if you could provide a copy of the financial advice which you have prepared for your authority and/or circulated to your Deputy Mayor on your current and impending budget position, in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

We are particularly interested in the degree of reliance your authority has on GLA funding streams and what approach you are advocating in that regard.

I would be grateful if you could respond by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee Jo Moore, Chief Finance Officer, Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) David Gallie, Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:99 [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank

Page 100 Page 101

Report title Financial Position as at the end of June 2020

Report to Date Corporate Services DB 21 July 2020 Commissioner’s Board 29 July 2020

Report by Report number Assistant Director, Finance [LFC-0389]

Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full

Summary This report presents the London Fire Commissioner’s (LFC) financial position as at the end of June 2020 and provides information on financial performance against revenue and capital budgets.

The current forecast is for a substantial forecast overspend on the revenue budget at £10.1m The report presents how the LFC will seek to address this overspend as well as the in year funding reduction for the LFB, as included in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

Recommendation

That the London Fire Commissioner: 1. Notes the financial position as at the end of June 2020, which includes a forecast overspend of £10.1m.

2. Approves the reserve movements set out at Table 2.

3. Approves the capital budget slippage of £8.5m to future years budgets offset by the re-profiling of £5.3m from the 2021/22 capital budget to 2020/21.

4. Agrees the approach to addressing the in year savings required by the Mayor and the forecast overspend

Background 1. This report presents the current revenue and capital expenditure position for June 2020 and the forecast outturn position at March 2021. It includes a forecast overspend of £10,103k and an in- year savings requirement of £10m. Action is required to be taken to address both the overspend and the in-year savings requirement.

2. All departments review their actual income and expenditure on a month/quarterly basis, and provide an updated forecast of outturn and explanation of variances, against all their budgets, to the Finance Department. These returns then form the basis of reporting to the Corporate

Page 102 The London Fire Commissioner is the fire and rescue authority for London 1 of 29

Services Directorate Board and to the Commissioner’s Board and from there on to the Greater London Authority. This report presents substantial overspends and further work is being undertaken to identify both their cause and identify possible actions to address them. Key areas of overspend are on COVID-19 response costs, operational overtime and insurance premium costs. Further information is provided on these areas in the report.

3. This report also sets out how the LFC will seek to meet the in year funding reduction for the LFB of up to £10m, as included in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance, as well as the forecast overspend.

Background to 2020/21 Budget 4. The 2020/21 budget was approved by the London Fire Commissioner (LFC) on 25 March 2020 (LFC-0324y-D) with a net revenue budget of £401.5m, being made up of net expenditure of £444.4m with £9.6m funding from earmarked reserves and £33.3m funding from specific grants.

5. This report sets out a summary position on both the revenue and capital budgets, and then provides more detailed explanations of variances.

Mayor’s Budget Guidance for 2021/22 6. The Mayor of London published his Budget Guidance for 2021/22 on 26 June 2020. The Guidance sets out scenarios for reductions in funding sources available to the Mayor, and reduces funding for the LFC in 2021/22 by up to £15m, and also requires the LFB to make in year savings of up to £10m in 2020/21. This report sets out options to address the in year savings.

Revenue 7. The forecast outturn position at the end of June 2020 on the revenue budget is for an overspend of £10,103k, which is 2.3% of the net revenue budget.

8. The variance is mainly due to:

• Forecast costs of the response to Covid-19 pandemic (£6,795k) offset by expected £1,760k grant from the GLA. This includes £2,217k for station cleaning which also reflects the impact of the additional £1,196k proposed in the report on the Extension of Cleaning Provision across the London Fire Brigade Estate, also on today’s agenda, • Insurance related budgets following the increase in renewal premiums, but with the cost increase reduced significantly following an accelerated tender process (£922k), • Operational staff overspend due to overtime (£4,029k), • Professional Services (£2,164k) due to the Grenfell Tower Investigation legal costs offset by income from the insurers, • Hardware and Software (£866k). This includes additional ICT Equipment for Covid-19, Grenfell Tower Investigation legal costs related spend for software purchase (£318k) which is offset by income from the insurers, and £121k relating to library software charges that are shared with GLA. This is also offset by income. • Building maintenance (£807k) due to a forecast by KBR on the integrator contracts for reactive Building Fabric and Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) services, based on current workload and average monthly spend during previous 12 months,

9. The above overspends are offset by: • Income from insurers (£2,693k) for Grenfell Tower Investigation legal costs. • Other income (£520k) including £239k from Training for National Interagency Liaison Officers (NILO) and Smoke Filled Environment (SFE) courses for 2020/21, £121k for

Page 103 2 of 29

the software system shared with the GLA that offsets expenditure above, and £160k on secondment income offsetting staff salary costs. • £150k on other property services due to funding specifically approved for the provision of expert property advice on the 8 Albert Embankment project where no spend is now forecast during 2020/21. • £333k on running costs due to BP free fuel for emergency services and reduced home visits due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

10. This forecast outturn position is before the impact of the in year funding reductions required in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance, set out from paragraph 35 below.

11. The key variances are explained in more detail from paragraph 13 below.

Tables and Appendices to this report 12. A number of appendices provide additional detail on the financial position, as follows:

• Table 1 provides a summary of the financial position for the revenue budget; • Table 2 provides the revised budget gap for 2020/21 and 2021/22; • Table 3 provides the in year budget gap for 2020/21; • Table 4 provides the budget gap for 2021/22; • Table 5 provides the latest position on reserves; • Table 6 provides the latest position on the capital programme; • Appendix 1 provides additional detail on the forecast outturn financial position for the revenue budget; • Appendix 2 contains the financial position for the capital budget; • Appendix 3 shows the changes in the use of reserves from March Budget Report; • Appendix 4 discuss the risks to the revenue and capital position that have not been quantified; • Appendix 5 provides an analysis of outstanding debt relating to charges for Shut in Lift attendances; • Appendix 6 meets the requirement to disclose all budget virements within the quarter under the LFC Scheme of Governance;

Table 1 - Summary Financial Position

Current Current Current Revised Outturn Outturn Budget Spend Variance Budget Variance

£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Operational staff 68,177 69,199 1,022 278,384 283,440 5,056 Other staff 14,363 16,532 2,169 60,724 61,187 463 Employee related 19,294 15,883 (3,410) 23,959 24,282 324 Pensions 6,133 4,991 (1,142) 21,321 21,321 0 Premises 18,104 16,888 (1,216) 40,196 43,193 2,997 Transport 13,525 15,202 1,676 17,018 17,304 286 Supplies and services 14,413 22,048 7,635 27,870 32,864 4,994 Third party payments 863 892 29 1,386 1,503 116 Capital financing costs (59) (98) (38) 8,050 8,552 502 Central contingency against 11 0 (11) 70 74 3 inflation

Page 104 3 of 29

Current Current Current Revised Outturn Outturn Budget Spend Variance Budget Variance

£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Total revenue expenditure 154,824 161,538 6,714 478,977 493,719 14,742

Other income (2,896) (315) 2,581 (39,606) (42,487) (2,881) Net revenue expenditure 151,929 161,223 9,294 439,371 451,232 11,861

Use of earmarked reserves 0 0 0 (4,535) (4,550) (15) Financing Requirement 151,929 161,223 9,294 434,836 446,682 11,846

Financed by: Specific grants (8,334) (22,883) (14,549) (33,336) (35,079) (1,743) GLA funding 0 0 0 (401,500) (401,500) 0

Net Financial Position 143,595 138,340 (5,255) 0 10,103 10,103

Reasons for the Revenue Position

Staff 13. The budget for operational staff is forecast to have a substantial overspend at £5,056k. The key element of this overspend is operational overtime (£4,029k). Further work is being undertaken to understand the cause of this and the actions that can be taken to address it. The overspend is also due to allowances, overtime and expenses for frontline staff in supporting the London Ambulance Service (LAS) and Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) due to Covid-19 (£1,216k) and Firefighter trainees (£156k).

14. The overspending position is partly offset by vacancy levels, with an average vacancy of 68 forecast as at the end of June based upon a planned firefighter trainee intake of 300. This results in a forecast underspend of £497k.

15. The £4,028k overspend on operational overtime is based on a forward projection of the cost incurred in the year to date and represents a significant element of the Brigade wide position. In previous years spending on overtime has been contained within the operational staff budget as a whole, however this situation has changed in this financial year as a result of reducing vacancy levels. It had been anticipated that overtime spend would also reduce in line with this. As this is not yet being observed as at Quarter 1, a review is now being undertaken to assess the position in greater detail. Whilst only £100k of the above overspend relates to the response to the Covid- 19 pandemic, the review will assess whether there are any indirect Covid-19 consequences.

16. FRS budgets are forecast to overspend by £437k, which is 0.8% of the total FRS budget. This overspend includes the impact of a £1,900k vacancy margin in 2020/21 based on expected FRS vacancy levels. At the end of June, there were 184 vacancies and 93 agency staff. This overspend therefore means that departments are currently not expecting to fully achieve the vacancy margin, based on departmental recruitment plans and leaver forecasts. This position will continue to be monitored through the year. This forecast overspend is also likely to reduce as a result of the recruitment control process that is being implemented as part of the in-year savings proposals.

Page 105 4 of 29

17. Control staff budgets are forecast to overspend by £26k mainly on overtime.

Insurance related 18. Insurance related budgets were at risk of overspending due to the increase in renewal premiums as a result of the claims experience on Grenfell. The annual premiums were proposed to increase by £2,000k. In view of this proposed substantial increase in the premiums, an accelerated procurement process was undertaken to identify alternative options for fleet and liability covers, to reduce the overall insurance costs. The successful completion of this tender process has allowed the annual insurance premiums to be reduced by £1,001k, reducing the overspend in the current year to £922k.

Premises 19. The overspend on building maintenance £807k is mainly due to a forecast by KBR on the integrator contracts for reactive Building Fabric and Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing services, based on current workload and average monthly spend during the previous 12 months. KBR and LFB staff are managing order requests from end users to ensure that work requests are justified.

20. A forecast overspend on rents of £127k is due to the estimated cost of dilapidations at Brigade Distribution Centre (BDC) when the lease ends in September 2020.

21. The Cleaning and Domestic Supplies overspend (£2,242k) relates to additional cleaning at LFB Properties due to Covid-19, including £1,196k additional spend to be considered as part of the Extension of Cleaning Provision report, also on today’s agenda.

22. This is offset by an underspend on Other Property Services (£150k) due to funding specifically approved for the provision of expert property advice on the 8 Albert Embankment project where no spend is now forecast during 2020/21 as the planning application has been 'called in' by the Government and this is expected to delay the project for a further year. The funding will be transferred to an earmarked reserve.

Transport 23. Transport budgets are forecast to overspend on Travel (£464k) mainly due to Covid-19 related spend for Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and congestion charge expenses, mileage costs for LAS volunteers and travel to Covid-19 tests, as well as £72k on vehicle and lease car insurance due to the increase in the renewal premiums, mentioned at paragraph 18.

24. The above overspend is offset by £333k underspending on running costs due to BP free fuel for emergency services and reduced home visits due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Supplies and Services 25. There is a forecast overspend of £4,994k on Supplies and Services budgets mainly on Operational Equipment (£1,337k) for direct orders of additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), additional Face Masks and HML costs due to Covid-19.

26. Professional Services (£1,855k) are overspending mainly on the Grenfell Tower Investigation legal costs (£2,164k) offset by income from the insurers for the provisional settlement on reimbursement of disclosure costs in the current and previous years. This is also offset by £361k on professional services for the HR and Payroll System which is delayed due to Covid-19. It is planned that this underspend will be earmarked in the reserve for use next year.

Page 106 5 of 29

27. Clothing and Laundry (£207k) is overspending mainly due to new recruits, but also Covid-19 related costs (£56k).

28. Communications budgets are also forecast to overspend by £250k in response to Covid-19 and enforced working from home. The uptake of the tele conferencing service has been significant, with both the number of calls and the participants on those calls being high. The costs are being investigated and alternative solutions promoted.

29. Hardware and Software (£866k) is forecast to overspend due to additional ICT Equipment for Covid-19 response (£308k), Grenfell Tower Investigation legal related software purchase (£319k), which will be offset by income from the insurers, and software system charges (£121k) that are shared with GLA and will be offset by income.

30. Staff Reimbursements (£291k) are overspent due to Covid-19 expenses for LAS and Pandemic Multi Agency Response Teams (PMART) volunteers.

Income 31. There is a forecast over recovery of income of £2,881k mainly due to income from insurers in respect of the Grenfell Tower Investigation (£2,693k) which offsets spend on professional services and hardware and software costs relating to Grenfell. There is also additional income from training for National Interagency Liaison Officers (NILO) and Smoke Filled Environment (SFE ) courses for 2020/21 (£239k), on library software charges (£121k) that are shared with GLA and offset expenditure above, and on secondment income offsetting staff salary costs (£160k).

32. The above over recovery is offset by a reduction in income of £287k on sponsorship income.

33. Appendix 5 includes an update on the position on the key outstanding charges, on Shut in Lift debt.

Specific grants 34. This is over recovering mainly due to a forecast grant income of £1,760k expected from the GLA to partly offset costs of the response to Covid-19 pandemic. The LFC has also registered an intention to make a claim against the £6m Home Office Covid-19 response fund, with this to be submitted by the end of September.

Mayor’s Budget Guidance for 2021/22 35. The Mayor of London published his Budget Guidance for 2021/22 on 26 June 2020. The Mayor’s Budget Guidance report (LFC-0382) set out the main points from the Guidance along with the implications for the LFB. The Guidance reduces funding in 2021/22 by up to £15m, and also requires the LFB to make in year savings of up to £10m in 2020/21.

36. The £10m of in year savings would put the LFB in a £20.1m overspend position when considered alongside the existing forecast overspend of £10.1m. It is proposed to use a combination of reserves and in year spending reductions to address this.

Page 107 6 of 29

Reserves and Grant Funding 37. As set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance report (LFC-0382) the LFB is now forecasting a budget gap of £20.8m for the 2021/22 financial year, after a £25.1m draw from the budget flexibility reserve (BFR). Proposals to address the in year budget gap for 2020/21, as well as 2021/22, through the use of reserves and grant funding are considered below.

38. Following the local government funding announcement made by MHCLG on 2 July, it is now planned that the GLA will make use of its reserve balances to help meet the in year funding reductions for 2020/21. This GLA reserves allocation planned at £5.0m would offset part of the £10m funding reduction, and reduce this to £5m.

39. It may also be possible to secure additional funding this year, and therefore reduce the budget gap, by making a successful claim against the £6m of Home Office funding for Covid-19 related activities. The LFB has notified the Home Office of the intention to make a bid against this funding, which is to be submitted by 30 September.

40. The £20.1m in year funding gap in 2020/21, adjusted as necessary for the items above and any further spend reductions set out at paragraphs 46 to 49 below, could then be met through an earlier draw on the BFR noting that this would have a knock on impact of reducing the BFR funding available in 2021/22 and increasing the budget gap in that year to £40.9m, if the full £20.1m was required.

41. Whilst using the BFR in this way would materially increase the budget gap next year, it should be noted that this forecast budget gap does not include any additional pensions grant funding. One off grant of £21.7m has been received in 2019/20 and 2020/21. It was also previously announced that ongoing funding for this would be settled as part of the next spending review. The budget assumption to date has been that whilst additional funding for pensions was expected from the spending review, this would be offset by general reductions in funding to leave a net nil increase. In view of the Mayor’s Budget Guidance now reflecting substantial reductions in funding, it is planned to also now consider including the £21.7m additional funding in the planning assumptions, which would represent about 85% of the additional pensions costs. This is also consistent with the approach adopted by a number of other Fire and Rescue Authorities that have assumed continuation of the additional pensions funding.

42. Table 2 below shows the forecast budget gaps for the LFC of £24.9m in 2020/21 and £45.9m in 2021/22 before any use of the BFR in those years. It should be noted that the figure for 2020/21 reflects the forecast underspend and funding reduction in this year, but not the other potential mitigations discussed in this section of the report. The table then shows the impact of an accelerated use of the BFR in 2020/21 and the impact that the assumption of additional pensions funding in 2021/22 will have. Using the BFR in this way allows the budget gap to be met in 2020/21, but increases the budget gap in 2021/22 to £39.9m. An assumption of the ongoing pension funding continuing would then reduce this to £18.2m if funding at the current £21.7m level was included.

Table 2 – Revised Budget Gap 2020/21 and 2021/22 2020/21 2021/22 £m £m

Forecast Budget Gap (24.9) (45.9)

Page 108 7 of 29

2020/21 2021/22 £m £m

Planned Draw on Budget Flexibility Reserve 4.8 25.1

Budget Gap - Revised (20.1) (20.8)

Update to MTF (Insurance) 1.0

Accelerated Use of BFR 20.1 (20.1)

Revised Budget Gap – After BFR 0.0 (39.9)

Ongoing Pension Grant Received 21.7

Revised Budget Gap – with Pension Grant 0.0 (18.2)

43. The Government has now announced that the next spending review will cover a three year period from 2021/22 to 2023/24 and as a result a decision on the ongoing nature of this pensions grant is now expected this financial year. This will then clarify the position on the ongoing pensions funding.

44. If an assumption is made on ongoing pension funding before allocations are confirmed from 2021/22 , it will also be necessary to include a material new risk to the budget position, to recognise that pensions grant funding may not be provided in the spending review.

45. Finally it is also possible to consider the use of a further reserve, the Capital Expenditure Reserve (CER) at £11.7m. The financial position and the ongoing delays to the sale of the 8 Albert Embankment site mean that it also appropriate to review how this is used. This was created following the sale of the site of the former Southwark Training Centre (STC). The GLA made a payment of £11.7m to the LFC to offset the lower than budgeted receipt from that sale. This was on the basis that the funding should be returned to the GLA following the sale of the former HQ at 8 Albert Embankment. The planning application for that site has now been ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State for MHCLG. It therefore now seems appropriate to review the use of this reserve. This will be considered as part of the Budget 2021/22, and possible use to fund the capital programme, in order to reduce capital financing costs.

In Year Spend Reductions 46. Departments are currently developing budget proposals for 2021/22, and have also been asked to highlight where any savings can be achieved earlier in 2020/21. This may identify some savings, but is unlikely to generate these at the level required to meet the budget reduction and/or the in-year overspend.

47. Whilst the current forecast overspend of £10.1m is the first formal forecast outturn position for the year, and has been prepared in the exceptional circumstances presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, its scale, coupled with the in-year funding reduction, requires Brigade wide measures to be taken to address it. Expenditure plans for 2020/21 are therefore being reviewed to identify where reductions could be made and the risks, and possible mitigating actions, that would result from this. The key ones identified for action include

Page 109 8 of 29

• Overtime – as explained earlier in this report analysis is being undertaken to underspend the cause of the current overspend and develop plans to reduce it. • Recruitment – both operational and FRS recruitment is to be reviewed, with additional scrutiny in the form of an ‘establishment control process’ already introduced for FRS recruitment. • Property – further work will be undertaken to identify if the overspending on property works can be offset by reducing spend in other property expenditure. • Transformation reserve – the forecast underspending on the reserve in the current year could be re-purposed to support the funding gap.

48. The above areas will also be considered in light of proposals that may be included in the LFC budget submission for 2021/22, particularly around recruitment.

49. The proposals to be pursued as part of this option could of course have a potentially significant impact on service delivery, and whilst initial risks and mitigation have been identified, further work will be undertaken as part of pursuing these proposals.

50. The review of expenditure will also include the Covid-19 response, and in particular the Home Office funding to help meet the costs. The LFC’s Covid-19 costs at £6.7m are to be partly met by funding from the GLA, forecast at £1.8m. The LFC has registered an intention to, and will submit by the deadline of 30 September, a claim against the Home Office £6m Covid-19 fund. This has criteria to be met including restrictions in the types of costs to be reimbursed, as well an expectation of having exhausted other sources of specific Covid-19 funding. No forecast is yet included for this funding, but this will be reviewed at Q2 following the submission of the claim to the Home Office.

Summary 51. It is therefore proposed to meet the 2020/21 in year budget gap as set out in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – In Year Budget Gap 2020/21 2020/21 In year Budget Gap 2020/21 £m

In year funding reduction (10.0)

Forecast overspend (10.1)

2020/21 Budget Gap (20.1)

Use of GLA reserves to reduce funding reduction 5.0

In year savings proposals 3.0

Use of BFR – funding reduction1 2.0

Use of BFR – forecast overspend1 10.1

Revised Budget Gap 0.0

Note 1: The use of the BFR is the balancing figure and any additional savings/reductions in expenditure, or additional Home Office Covid funding, for 2020/21 would reduce the draw from the BFR.

Page 110 9 of 29

Budget Gap 2021/22 52. The impact of the £15m funding reduction in 2021/22 is set out in Table 4 below The action taken to address the budget gap in 2020/21 could have a significant impact on 2021/22. The accelerated use of the BFR to balance 2020/21, without the continuation of the pensions funding, would mean that less funding would be available from this source in 2021/22, with then greater budget savings required to be identified in that year. By contrast the assumption of ongoing pensions funding could reduce the budget gap by up to £21.7m. Table 4 below shows that the possible additional use of the BFR in 2020/21 of £12.1m, and therefore reducing to £13.0m the amount that would be available from the BFR in 2021/22, partly offset by a reduced insurance cost pressure of £1.0m, increases the budget gap in 2021/22 to £31.9m. However, if ongoing pensions funding is assumed, and is provided at the current £21.7m level, then this reduces the budget gap to £10.2m.

Table 4 – Budget Gap 2021/22 2020/21 Budget Gap 2021/22 £m

Budget Gap Revised (20.8)

Update to MTF (Insurance) 1.0

Accelerated Use of BFR (Table 3) (12.1)

Revised Budget Gap – after BFR 31.9

Ongoing Pension Grant 21.7

Revised Budget Gap – with Pension Grant 10.2

53. Work will continue on the proposals to meet the in year savings requirement and progress will be reported in future financial position reports. Work to address the funding reductions in 2021/22 will be finalised as part of the budget process and presented in the LFC’s budget submission to the Mayor in November 2020.

COVID-19 forecasts 54. The total forecast of the LFC’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is £6,795k for 2020/21 and will be offset by expected funding for the GLA of £1,760k resulting in a net expenditure of £5,035k.

55. Central government has provided additional funding for local authorities, including fire, towards the cost of the response to the coronavirus. The GLA group received £9.3m in each of the first two tranches. Discussions on the allocations to the LFC from this £18.6m are ongoing but it is anticipated that £1.8m will be received. The second tranche also included £6m allocated to the Home Office for further allocation to FRSs. The LFC has registered an intention to make a claim against this funding, with this required to be submitted by 30 September. No forecast is currently included for this, but the position will be reviewed at Q2 following the submission of the claim.

Page 111 10 of 29

56. The Home Office have also requested that FRSs provide a record of expenditure, so they can monitor the spend on the Covid-19 response across the sector. The NFCC is collating these returns from each FRS.

Capital 57. The original budget for the 2020/21 capital programme was £35,690k, as per the Capital Strategy (LFC-0134) report. The budget was increased to £36,181k following on from the capital outturn position report for 2019/20 financial year (LFC-0355-D), which saw £491k brought into 2020/21 from 2019/20.

58. The forecasted capital outturn for 2020/21 as at Quarter 1 is £33,037k which is £3,144k less than the revised budget position at outturn 2019/20. This is mainly due to a budget slippage to future years of £8,452k offset by budget re-profiling from 2021/22 of £5,285k. £23k was also added to the Capital Programme in 2020/21 as contingency which was agreed in the Fleet Specialist Vehicle report LFC-0284y.

59. The key variances are explained in more detail from paragraph 67 and in Appendix 2.

Position on Reserves 60. The table below sets out the position on the financial reserves, resulting from the financial position reported above. The balance on the general reserve, following the forecast outturn overspend position, is £5,472k, and this is £9,906k below the minimum general reserve position of 3.5% of the net revenue expenditure.

61. This report includes options to address in-year spending and funding, with the expectation that this will reduce the overspend position, and consequent draw on reserves, ensuring that the general reserve returns to the minimum level. The impact of the increased draw on reserves will be addressed as part of the budget process 2021/22.

62. Table 5 below sets out the position on the financial reserves.

Table 5 - Position on Reserves

£000s Opening Approved Approved Transfer Proposed Anticipated Balance at Movements Movement Between Use of Balance at 01/04/20 in Q4 19/20 to Q1 Reserves Reserves 31/03/20 Additional Resilience Requirements 568 (44) 524 Capital Expenditure Reserve 11,745 0 11,745 Central Programme Office 645 0 645 Community Safety Investment 0 0 0 Fund Compensation 676 324 (439) 561 Emergency Services Mobile 2,172 (64) 2,108 Communication Programme Emergency Medical Response 294 0 294 Fire Safety and Youth Engagement 1,007 (674) 333 Transformation Plan 0 5,500 0 5,500 Hydrants 462 0 462 ICT Development Reserve 1,953 0 1,953 LFC Control Centre 729 0 729 LFB Museum Project 201 (38) 163

Page 112 11 of 29

£000s Opening Approved Approved Transfer Proposed Anticipated Balance at Movements Movement Between Use of Balance at 01/04/20 in Q4 19/20 to Q1 Reserves Reserves 31/03/20 London Resilience 771 0 771 London Safety Plan Initiatives 3,162 (439) 2,723 New Governance Arrangements 0 0 0 Organisational Reviews 327 (89) 239 Recruitment/ Outreach 250 0 250 Sustainability 235 0 235 Vehicle & Equipment Reserve 2,697 (59) 2,638 Budget Flexibility 29,930 (4,904) 25,027 General 21,399 (5,824) (10,103) 5,472 Total 79,224 0 0 0 (16,853) 62,371

63. The Final Outturn Financial Position report (LFC 0355) approves the transfer of £5,500k into a new Transformation reserve to fund the Transformation Delivery Plan and £324k to the Compensation reserve to allow this earmarked reserve to be maintained at a level of £1m to meet any additional spend on compensation costs in future years.

64. The use of reserves mainly includes £439k on Compensation reserve to fund personal injury claims, £439k from the London Safety Plan initiatives and £674k to fund Fire Safety and Youth Engagement.

65. It is proposed to transfer to the earmarked reserve the expected underspend on Other Property Services of £150k detailed in paragraph 22 above and £361k on professional service for the HR and Payroll System delayed due to Covid-19 detailed in paragraph 26. It is planned that this underspends will be earmarked in the reserve for use next year.

66. The forecast movement on the reserves in 2019/20 was included as part of the Budget Report 2020/21, and the movements set out above are compared to the original forecast in a table provided at Appendix 3. This shows the anticipated balance on reserves at 31st March 2020 presented in the March Budget, and the revised forecast balance included in this report. The forecast balance in reserves has decreased from £79,224k to £62,611k, a decrease of £16,613k mainly as a result of the forecast overspending position on the general reserve.

Capital 67. The forecast capital outturn position at the end of June 2020 is £33,037k, a reduction of £3,144k compared to the position reported at 2019/20 Outturn, £36,181k (LFC-0355-D). The main changes in the programme are outlined below:

• Budgets brought forward to 2020/21 £5,285k • Budget slippage to future years (£8,452k) • New budget (agreed LFC-0284y) £23k Total (£3,144k)

68. The budgets brought forward to 2020/21 of £5,285k primarily relate to Fleet and Property, with key movements occurring from the Fire boats replacement (£3,148k), Plumstead Fire Station redevelopment (£768k) Heating at various stations (£522k) and Roofing replacement (£357k) schemes.

Page 113 12 of 29

69. The budget slippage of £8,452k to future years includes New Audio and Vision Equipment for Stations (£500k), Property projects on the Lambeth River Station redevelopment (£2,947k) and Croydon Training Centre (£828k) along with the Respiratory Protective Equipment and Fireground Radio projects where the operational requirement is addressing developing needs post Grenfell, and responding to market changes (£3,200k).

70. The capital budgets include the impact of reports recently approved for Fleet (LFB Specialist Heavy Fleet Vehicles Replacement LFC-0284y) Property Services (Premises Asset Replacement Works for Projects in 2020/21 and 2021/22– London Fire Brigade Estate LFC-0354y).

71. The changes from the 2019/20 outturn position are summarised by department in Table 5 below, and a more detailed explanation of the changes is provided in Appendix 2

Table 6 - Capital Budget Changes by Department Budget Year 2020/21 2020/21 Variance Slippage Budget Budget Revised (to)/ from Increases/ Outturn Budget later years (decreases) 2019/20 Qtr. 1 £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s

ICT 2,488 1,793 (695) (695) 0

Property £000s14,153 11,901 (2,252) (2,252) 0 Communications 110 110 0 0 0 Fleet 16,230 19,233 3,003 2,980 23 Operational Policy 3,200 0 (3,200) (3,200) 0 Capital Programme 36,181 33,037 (3,144) (3,167) 23

Debtors 72. An analysis of debtors relating to Shut in Lift is provided in Appendix 5. This includes a chart that shows the level of Shut in Lift debts. The total number of Shut in Lift debts had been falling gradually, with the overall balance reduced from £300k at the end of September 2015 to £98k at the end of June 2019. As at the end of June 2020, the total outstanding debt on Shut in Lift is £186k with this increase due to the increasing level of charges raised, with further work being undertaken to confirm if this is an ongoing trend.

Finance comments 73. This report is presented by the Assistant Director, Finance and there are no further comments.

Workforce comments 74. No staff-side consultations have been undertaken on this report.

Legal comments 75. The report is a financial performance update, presented for information only. It is submitted in accordance with Part 6 (Financial Regulations) of the London Fire Commissioner’s (“LFC”) Scheme of Governance that sets out detailed rules covering financial planning, monitoring, control, systems and procedures and insurance.

Page 114 13 of 29

76. This report fulfils the obligations of section 8 (f) of the Financial Regulations which stipulates that, “Following consultation with the relevant Heads of Service the Director of Corporate Services will present budget monitoring reports to the relevant Board regularly.

77. The Director of Corporate Services has responsibility for the administration of the LFC’s financial affairs under section 127 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and is required to ensure arrangements for all financial and accounting matters, the security of money, and other assets are economic, efficient and effective.

Sustainability implications 78. There are no direct sustainable implications arising from this report.

Equalities implications 79. The London Fire Commissioner and decision takers are required to have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (s149 of the Equality Act 2010) when exercising our functions and taking decisions.

80. It is important to note that consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty is not a one-off task. The duty must be fulfilled before taking a decision, at the time of taking a decision, and after the decision has been taken.

81. The protected characteristics are: Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Pregnancy and maternity, Marriage and civil partnership (but only in respect of the requirements to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination), Race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality), Religion or belief (including lack of belief), Sex, and Sexual orientation.

82. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires us, in the exercise of all LFC functions (i.e. everything the LFC does), to have due regard to the need to:

a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct.

b) Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

c) Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

83. Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to:

a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic where those disadvantages are connected to that characteristic;

b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

Page 115 14 of 29

84. The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.

85. Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

(a) tackle prejudice, and

(b) promote understanding.

86. Paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 of the Mayor’s Budget Guidance stipulate that:

5.3 It will be a key objective for London’s recovery to address the social and economic inequalities that have driven differences in the impact of Covid-19 across London’s communities, as well as the inequalities created as a result of the crisis itself. In reviewing and repurposing their budgets to support London’s recovery all members of the GLA Group must consider what steps they can take to address these inequalities.

5.4 All members of the GLA Group must also assess their wider budget proposals to consider both their potential impact on different groups of Londoners (including, but not limited to, those protected by equalities legislation), and are encouraged to consider how they can broaden their activities to further address poverty, economic inequality and social integration in London.

87. On 30 June 2020 the LFB Head of Strategic Finance wrote to all Heads of Department with budget packs to request their saving/growth proposals. As part of this communication a specific instruction was included which set out the LFB’s obligations under the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty, with guidance to support them to complete Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) on relevant proposals.

88. The Inclusion Team has been consulted throughout the process and will support any departments undertaking EIAs on their proposals.

List of Appendices to this report 1. Detailed Financial Position 2. Capital Programme 2020/21 3. Changes in use of reserves from March Budget Report 4. Risks to the revenue and capital position 5. Outstanding LIFT debtors 6. Scheme of Governance – Budget Virements

Consultation Name/role Method consulted Heads of Department Departmental finance returns

Page 116 15 of 29 Appendix 1 – Detailed Financial Position

Current Current Current Variance Original Revised Outturn Outturn Variance Budget Spend Budget Budget

£ £ £ % £ £ £ £ % Operational Staff 67,643,835 68,685,602 1,041,766 1.5% 277,944,490 276,250,137 281,150,645 4,900,509 1.8% Trainee Firefighters 533,350 513,277 (20,073) (3.8%) 2,133,401 2,133,401 2,289,298 155,897 7.3% Total Operational Staff 68,177,186 69,198,879 1,021,693 1.5% 280,077,891 278,383,538 283,439,943 5,056,406 1.8%

FRS Staff 13,025,601 15,101,691 2,076,089 15.9% 56,413,189 55,187,936 55,624,658 436,721 0.8% Control Staff 1,337,319 1,430,573 93,254 7.0% 5,536,277 5,536,277 5,562,431 26,154 0.5% Total Other Staff 14,362,921 16,532,264 2,169,343 15.1% 61,949,466 60,724,213 61,187,089 462,876 0.8%

Other Pension Payments 212,500 7,032 (205,468) (96.7%) 850,000 850,000 850,000 0 0.0% Severance 0 3,461 3,461 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% Professional Development 18,336,625 16,826,571 (1,510,053) (8.2%) 20,072,924 19,652,125 19,671,532 19,407 0.1% Page 117 Page Recruitment 41,235 7,140 (34,095) (82.7%) 414,941 164,941 167,391 2,450 1.5% Employee Related Insurance 0 68,458 68,458 0.0% 304,020 304,020 626,720 322,700 106.1% Compensation 201,453 (1,577,369) (1,778,823) (883.0%) 805,814 980,605 995,149 14,544 1.5% Medical and Welfare Expenses 501,770 548,059 46,289 9.2% 2,301,081 2,007,081 1,971,525 (35,556) (1.8%) Total Employee Related 19,293,584 15,883,352 (3,410,232) (17.7%) 24,748,780 23,958,772 24,282,316 323,545 1.4%

Firefighter Pension Scheme 6,133,117 4,991,283 (1,141,834) (18.6%) 21,320,692 21,320,692 21,320,692 0 0.0%

Building Maintenance 3,123,439 906,079 (2,217,359) (71.0%) 9,418,556 9,416,556 10,223,556 807,000 8.6% Grounds Maintenance 24,238 21,671 (2,566) (10.6%) 120,984 120,984 120,984 0 0.0% Premises Security 580,752 377,144 (203,608) (35.1%) 630,271 670,271 670,271 0 0.0% Energy Costs 396,817 592,488 195,671 49.3% 2,463,430 2,463,430 2,463,430 0 0.0% Rents 4,039,277 4,116,628 77,351 1.9% 8,360,856 8,448,856 8,575,518 126,662 1.5% Property PFI Contract 5,646,428 5,706,167 59,739 1.1% 5,680,104 5,680,104 5,680,104 0 0.0% Property Rates 2,317,000 2,376,412 59,412 2.6% 7,622,967 7,638,967 7,610,167 (28,800) (0.4%) Water & Sewerage Rates 47,943 61,007 13,065 27.3% 279,117 279,117 279,117 0 0.0% Fixtures & Fittings 21,992 14,258 (7,734) (35.2%) 87,969 87,969 87,969 0 0.0% Cleaning and Domestic Supplies 360,541 961,926 601,385 166.8% 2,065,597 2,123,597 4,365,763 2,242,166 105.6% Premises Insurance 0 100,581 100,581 0.0% 331,016 331,016 331,016 0 0.0% Other Property Services 1,545,812 1,653,926 108,114 7.0% 3,073,683 2,934,683 2,784,683 (150,000) (5.1%)

16 of 29 Appendix 1 – Detailed Financial Position

Current Current Current Variance Original Revised Outturn Outturn Variance Budget Spend Budget Budget

£ £ £ % £ £ £ £ % Total Premises 18,104,238 16,888,288 (1,215,950) (6.7%) 40,134,550 40,195,549 43,192,578 2,997,028 7.5%

Running Costs 669,839 1,688,790 1,018,951 152.1% 2,551,555 2,551,555 2,218,474 (333,081) (13.1%) Vehicle and Equipment Contract 11,680,946 11,916,278 235,332 2.0% 11,713,196 11,713,196 11,774,586 61,390 0.5% Vehicle Passthroughs 647,154 604,077 (43,077) (6.7%) 1,097,983 642,984 664,436 21,452 3.3% Maintenance and Repairs 0 0 0 0.0% 1,262,086 0 0 0 0.0% Contract Hire & Operating Leases 316,503 317,476 972 0.3% 1,266,013 1,266,014 1,338,164 72,150 5.7% Travel 211,006 674,903 463,897 219.9% 821,521 844,021 1,308,171 464,150 55.0% Total Transport 13,525,448 15,201,524 1,676,076 12.4% 18,712,354 17,017,770 17,303,831 286,061 1.7%

Page 118 Page Hydrants 105,001 1,273,136 1,168,135 1,112.5% 445,004 420,004 420,004 0 0.0% Operational Equipment 335,977 2,404,546 2,068,569 615.7% 2,739,061 1,491,294 2,828,657 1,337,363 89.7% Smoke Alarms 146,660 125,385 (21,275) (14.5%) 586,638 586,638 531,569 (55,069) (9.4%) Equipment Furniture and Materials 89,808 339,592 249,784 278.1% 359,235 403,235 303,931 (99,304) (24.6%) Lost & NFWT Operational 122,448 172,186 49,738 40.6% 122,448 122,448 122,448 0 0.0% Equipment Catering 78,109 100,940 22,831 29.2% 304,936 312,436 276,919 (35,517) (11.4%) Clothing & Laundry 2,687,766 3,359,974 672,208 25.0% 3,563,096 3,437,897 3,644,676 206,780 6.0% General Office Expenses 189,093 200,931 11,838 6.3% 572,464 579,964 538,964 (41,000) (7.1%) Professional Services 7,990,122 6,869,632 (1,120,489) (14.0%) 9,086,878 8,950,899 10,805,848 1,854,949 20.7% Postal Services 60,717 42,912 (17,806) (29.3%) 61,055 61,055 61,055 0 0.0% Communications 1,071,238 1,110,614 39,377 3.7% 4,284,950 4,284,950 4,534,950 250,000 5.8% Hardware and Software 1,379,293 5,659,117 4,279,823 310.3% 8,408,958 6,336,292 7,202,717 866,424 13.7% Staff Reimbursements 60,428 163,305 102,877 170.2% 241,721 241,721 532,560 290,839 120.3% Grants and Subscriptions 58,322 142,113 83,791 143.7% 233,286 233,286 297,508 64,222 27.5% Other Insurance 0 63,886 63,886 0.0% 257,000 257,000 625,800 368,800 143.5% Advertising 26,465 36,939 10,473 39.6% 115,861 105,861 108,003 2,142 2.0% Other Supplies and Services 11,292 (17,396) (28,689) (254.1%) 45,170 45,170 28,397 (16,773) (37.1%) Total Supplies and Services 14,412,739 22,047,810 7,635,071 53.0% 31,427,761 27,870,151 32,864,006 4,993,856 17.9%

Other Agencies 345,134 339,710 (5,424) (1.6%) 486,134 396,134 407,435 11,301 2.9%

17 of 29 Appendix 1 – Detailed Financial Position

Current Current Current Variance Original Revised Outturn Outturn Variance Budget Spend Budget Budget

£ £ £ % £ £ £ £ % Other Local Authorities 436,189 584,080 147,892 33.9% 871,393 901,393 966,146 64,753 7.2% Audit & Bank Charges 81,400 (31,669) (113,069) (138.9%) 88,600 88,600 128,922 40,322 45.5% Total Third Party Payments 862,723 892,121 29,398 3.4% 1,446,127 1,386,127 1,502,503 116,376 8.4%

Debt Repayment (317,000) 0 317,000 (100.0%) 6,417,000 5,817,000 5,817,000 0 0.0% External Interest 257,667 (97,720) (355,386) (137.9%) 2,233,000 2,233,000 2,735,430 502,430 22.5% Total Capital Financing Costs (59,333) (97,720) (38,386) 64.7% 8,650,000 8,050,000 8,552,430 502,430 6.2%

Budget for Non Staff Inflation 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% Central Contingency 16,000 0 (16,000) (100.0%) 16,119 64,465 76,129 11,665 18.1% Savings to Be Achieved (14,694) 0 14,694 (100.0%) (157,329) (157,329) (157,329) 0 0.0% Page 119 Page Savings done by DA 10,161 0 (10,161) (100.0%) 159,781 163,195 154,723 (8,472) (5.2%) Contingency 11,466 0 (11,466) (100.0%) 18,571 70,330 73,523 3,193 4.5%

Total revenue expenditure 154,824,088 161,537,801 6,713,713 4.3% 488,486,192 478,977,141 493,718,911 14,741,769 3.1%

MFB Act Income 0 0 0 0.0% (30,577,291) (30,577,291) (30,577,291) 0 0.0% Customer and Client Receipts (2,820,577) (313,328) 2,507,249 (88.9%) (8,389,928) (8,228,828) (11,109,593) (2,880,766) 35.0% Interest Receivable (75,000) (1,471) 73,529 (98.0%) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) 0 0.0% Bad Debts 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Other Income (2,895,577) (314,799) 2,580,777 (89.1%) (39,767,219) (39,606,118) (42,486,884) (2,880,766) 7.3%

Net revenue expenditure 151,928,511 161,223,001 9,294,490 6.1% 448,718,973 439,371,023 451,232,027 11,861,004 2.7%

Use of Earmarked Reserves 0 0 0 0.0% (6,991,401) (4,535,417) (4,549,961) (14,544) 0.3%

Financing Requirement 151,928,511 161,223,001 9,294,490 6.1% 441,727,572 434,835,606 446,682,066 11,846,460 2.7%

Financed by: Specific grants (8,333,901) (22,883,396) (14,549,495) 174.6% (33,335,606) (33,335,606) (35,078,875) (1,743,269) 5.2% GLA Grant 0 0 0 0.0% (401,500,000) (401,500,000) (401,500,000) 0 0.0%

18 of 29 Appendix 1 – Detailed Financial Position

Current Current Current Variance Original Revised Outturn Outturn Variance Budget Spend Budget Budget

£ £ £ % £ £ £ £ %

Net Financial Position 143,594,610 138,339,605 (5,255,004) (3.7%) 6,891,966 0 10,103,191 10,103,191 0.0% Page 120 Page

19 of 29 Appendix 2 - Capital Programme 2020/21

2020/21 Capital position – Quarter 1

The forecast capital outturn position at the end of June 2020 is £33,037k, this is a £3,144k reduction from the position reported at 2019/20 outturn of £36,181k (LFC-0355-D). The changes in the programme are detailed below.

Budgets brought forward to 2020/21 from future years £5,285k Budget slippage to future year (£8,452k) New budgets £23k Total (£3,144k)

Budget brought forward to 2020/21 from future years – £5,285k • Property - Appliance Bay Doors (£161k) • Property – Plumstead Fire Station (£768k) • Property – Minor Improvements Programme (£238k) • Property – Lift refurbishment works (£91k) • Property – Roofing replacement (£357k) • Property – Heating at various stations (£522k) • Fleet - Fire boat replacement (£3,148k)

Slippage to future years – £8,452k • ICT - Multi Agency Incident Transfer (MAIT) (£195k) • ICT – Audio and Visual Equipment at Stations (£500k) • Respiratory Protective Equipment and Fireground Radios (£3,200k) • Lambeth River Station Redevelopment (£2,947k) • LFB Training Centre, Croydon (£828k) • Biggin Hill FS – Extension (£173k) • Chelsea/Clapham FS’s – Accommodation improvement (£273k) • Window replacement at various stations (£168k) • Fleet – Operational equipment (£168k)

New Budget – £23k • Fleet – Specialist Heavy Vehicles (£23k)

Page 121 20 of 29 Appendix 2 - Capital Programme 2020/21

The table below sets out the impact of the capital project slippage from 2019/20 and the changes to capital schemes as part of 2020/21 quarter 1 position, and the revised capital budgets for future years.

2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Capital Slippage Qtr. 1 Revised Revised Revised Revised Revised Strategy from Changes Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Capital Programme 2020/21 Budget 2019/20 onwards - Outturn 2019/20 £000 £000 £’000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 ICT Projects 1,380 1,108 (695) 1,793 3,985 4,846 5,950 6,926 Property Projects 13,251 902 (2,252) 11,901 27,319 14,173 10,365 11,699 Communication Project 80 30 0 110 1,120 1,152 0 0 Fleet Projects 17,779 (1,549) 3,003 19,233 16,283 2,662 16 3,423 Operational Policy Projects 3,200 0 (3,200) 0 8,200 0 0 0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TOTAL 35,690 491 (3,144) 33,037 56,907 22,833 16,331 22,048 Page 122 Page

21 of 29 Changes in Use of Reserve from March Budget Report Appendix 3

Appendix 3 shows the anticipated balance on reserves on 31st March 2020 in the March Budget, and the revised forecast balance included in this report. The total amount of reserves has decreased from £79,224k to £62,371k, a decrease of £16,853k mainly as a result of the forecast overspending position on the general reserve.

£000s Anticipated Anticipated Balance Balance (Q1 March 2020 Report) Movement Additional Resilience Requirements 568 524 (44) Capital Expenditure Reserve 11,745 11,745 0 Central Programme Office 645 645 0 Community Safety Investment Fund 0 0 0 Compensation 676 561 (115) Emergency Services Mobile Communication 2,172 2,108 (64) Programme Emergency Medical Response 294 294 0 Fire Safety and Youth Engagement 1,007 333 (674) HMICFRS inspection regime 0 5,500 5,500 Hydrants 462 462 0 ICT Development Reserve 1,953 1,953 0 LFC Control Centre 729 729 0 LFB Museum Project 201 163 (38) London Resilience 771 771 0 London Safety Plan Initiatives 3,162 2,723 (439) New Governance Arrangements 0 0 0 Organisational Reviews 327 239 (89) Recruitment/ Outreach 250 250 0 Sustainability 235 235 0 Vehicle & Equipment Reserve 2,697 2,638 (59) Budget Flexibility 29,930 25,027 (4,904) General 21,399 5,472 (15,927) Total 79,224 62,371 (16,853)

Page 123 22 of 29 Risks to the Revenue and Capital Position Appendix 4

1. Covid-19 1.1. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic is leading to additional costs. This is both in terms of the Brigade’s own services, such as in PPE and additional cleaning, but also in support of the wider emergency services response, in particular supporting the London Ambulance Service. 1.2. Additional funding has been provided to help meet these additional costs. However it is not yet clear what funding will be made available. This report includes funding from the GLA, but this is not yet agreed. The Brigade has also registered its intention to submit a claim to the Home Office £6m fund. 1.3. Whilst lockdown is now being eased there is a requirement to maintain caution with continuing requirements for social distancing, cleaning, and so on. There is also the risk of a second wave of the pandemic. 2. Funding 2.1. The COVID-19 pandemic is not only leading to additional costs, but also impacting on future funding levels. The Mayor’s Budget Guidance 2021/22 sets out revised indicative funding levels, and included an in-year saving requirement for LFC in 2020/21 of up to £10m. Plans to address this are considered in this report. This funding impact is subject to further review as the position develops, and further Government announcements are made on funding. 3. Firefighter and Local Government Pension Schemes 3.1. There has been a material increase in the cost of employer contributions for the existing firefighter pension schemes, following the scheme valuation 2016. That increase was assessed at £25m and is largely as a result of changes, by Government, to the discount rate used in valuing future liabilities. A grant of £22m was provided to offset this pressure in 2019/20 and in 2020/21. The figures in this report assume that no funding is received for this in subsequent financial years. As a result this £25m pressure forms a significant element of the forecast budget gap over the medium term. 3.2. The Fire Brigade Union notified LFC, along with 49 other Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs), of a discrimination claim in connection with the transitional arrangements applicable to the 2015 Firefighters Pension Scheme, as explained in FEP2506. The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants. The Government and FRAs sought permission from the Supreme Court to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision, however this was denied. In December 2019, the Employment Tribunal declared that firefighters are entitled to return to their pre 2015 pension scheme. The potential cost and staffing implications for the LFC are not possible to forecast at present, but may lead to a material budget pressure. The remedy is potentially made more complex as it may need to address the issue on a range public sector pensions, possibly including the LGPS. The Government is now consulting on the possible remedy. 4. London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) Pensions Administration 4.1. The London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) and Lancashire County Pension Fund have formed a strategic partnership and from April 2016 created a wholly owned company, Local Pensions Partnership (LPP), to manage pension fund investment activities (only on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS)) and also to provide pensions administration services, including to third party clients on the LGPS and the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (FPS). It was agreed (FEP2644) that the LFC should continue the current shared service arrangement with the LPFA for the administration of the FPS but with the LPFA then sub-contracting to the LPP. 4.2. Possible alternative shared service options have been considered working with the Local pensions and it has been agreed that the share service remain with the LPP, but that this be reviewed again in three years time. A key reason for remaining with the LPP was the risk

Page 124 23 of 29 Risks to the Revenue and Capital Position Appendix 4

identified in changing administrators when the significant changes required from the McCloud/Sargeant case are yet to be confirmed and implemented. 4.3. The review identified potential cost savings in the administration, both in alternative share service but also through re-structuring at LPP. Costs savings will continue to be pursued with the LPP as well as re-visited when the position is reviewed again in three years. 4.4. The LPP forecast cost for 2020/21 is £333k. 5. Pay and Inflation 5.1. The Covid-19 outbreak is likely to result in high levels of sickness among all staff groups within the LFB. In order to maintain resilience in front line response, the LFB is strengthening contingency arrangements to ensure adequate fire cover continues to be delivered across the organisation. This could potentially result in increased staff payments including overtime and recall arrangements, the potential use of the LFB’s emergency fire crew contract and other financial pressures. 5.2. The EU exit has led to some economic uncertainty. While the impact of this is currently unclear, preparing forecasts for increases in general inflation remains difficult. 5.3. LFC has made a budget provision for a 2% pay award for all staff in each of the next four years from 2020/21 to 2023/24. 6. Communications Budget 6.1. In response to the COVID-19 crisis and enforced working from home, ICT rolled out Tele conferencing services to strategic managers. The uptake of this service has been significant, with both the number of calls and the participants on those calls being high. The high call charges incurred continue to be reviewed with our service provider, and alternative options are now being used, primarily Microsoft Teams. 7. Transformation Delivery Plan (TDP) 7.1. As departments continue to deliver the items in the TDP this will sometimes result in additional financial pressures that are currently unfunded. Where these items are identified, it is proposed that they are reviewed to consider whether any flexibility in the Transformation reserve could be used to meet these costs. 8. Risks to Capital Expenditure and Financing 8.1. The capital programme is regularly reviewed and the associated risks to the programme are assessed throughout the year. Some risks are generic such as contractor default whilst other risks are specific to individual projects. Mitigating actions are adopted to reduce the risk occurring and to limit the impact of the risk, should it occur. 8.2. The capital budget is subject to change during the year. Initial project specification is key as it is important to keep variations to projects to a minimum, as change once a project has been agreed and commenced may result in additional costs. However even a well managed project can be subject to re-phasing or deferral due to a number of unforeseen issues, such as failure or default on the part of the contractor or exceptionally adverse weather conditions. This can also impact on funding requirements which in turn may have a debt charge (cost of borrowing) revenue impact. 8.3. All capital projects will require third party collaboration to varying degrees over the project life. The programme depends heavily on external factors and therefore can be subject to variation with the potential for delays in project delivery and revised cash flow requirements. The capital programme is managed on a monthly basis and all changes to the programme are reviewed and substitution projects or re-financing proposals are assessed and agreed.

Page 125 24 of 29 Risks to the Revenue and Capital Position Appendix 4

8.4. The debt charges arising from the capital programme have been calculated using the current forecast Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) rates. No allowance has been made in the capital programme for potential future capital grants or contributions and the Brigade will bid for available capital resources as and when such opportunities arise. 8.5. The 2020/21 capital programme includes the capital receipts financing from the sale of the former fire station at Clerkenwell and the part disposal of 8 Albert Embankment If the sales are delayed, it will impact on the financing of the capital programme and will result in additional borrowing and revenue costs than that currently envisaged. The level of required borrowing will be dependent on the timing of the capital receipts and the level of actual capital expenditure incurred during the year. 8.6. The LFB Training Centre project has a number of dependencies and challenges on maintaining costs within budget and with design in particular on the Real Fire Training Venue. This will need to be monitored on an ongoing basis. 8.7. A number of fire stations require major refurbishment/redevelopment which are not currently in the medium term capital programme. Should opportunities arise to relocate these fire stations funding may need to be requested/re-directed from other projects if deemed a priority. 8.8. Replacement vehicles and equipment - Key risks relate to the contractor sourcing appropriate vehicle build options within a timeframe that meets fleet replacement requirements and which may in turn impact the LFC’s cash flow. The forecast cash expenditure for 2020/21 and future years is based on the current assessment of the stage payment requirements for the pump replacement and aerial appliance replacement programme, which represents nearly 50% of the forecast Vehicles and Equipment expenditure in that period, and the delivery timings for the balance of the fleet replacement programme. 8.9. Covid 19 and Funding – The capital programme has been affected by the impact of Covid 19 in terms of delays on site works and equipment and vehicles deliveries. In addition, the impact on funding highlighted in paragraph 2.1 above is also likely to impact on the capital programme due to the lack of available funds to support the revenue costs arising from capital borrowing costs. 8.10. Financial Markets Uncertainty – This could impact on the interest costs of borrowing required to fund capital expenditure and on the cost of capital goods purchased from outside the UK.

Page 126 25 of 29 Outstanding Lift Debtors Appendix 5

The chart below shows the amount of outstanding LIFT debts, with £186k outstanding at the end of June 2020. The level of outstanding debt has been increasing due to an increase in the level of charges raised. Further work is being undertaken to confirm is this is an ongoing trend.

£250k

£200k

£150k

£100k

£50k

£0k

Jul-19

Jan-20 Jan-19

Jun-20 Jun-19

Oct-18 Oct-19

Apr-19 Apr-20

Sep-18 Feb-19 Sep-19 Feb-20

Dec-18 Dec-19

Aug-19

Nov-18 Nov-19

Mar-19 Mar-20 May-20 May-19 The table below shows the top five (worst) outstanding debtors for LIFT income.

£ No of outstanding invoices LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK 18,440 45 PEABODY TRUST 17,436 43 A2 DOMINION HOMES LIMITED 10,172 25 NETWORK RAIL 7,356 18 AFFINITY SUTTON 6,497 16 Grand Total 59,902 47

Review of the top five debtors

London Borough of Southwark: Invoices outstanding are chased regularly and payment is expected. These invoices are just over 30 days old.

Peabody Trust: Five of the outstanding invoices have been referred to General Counsel and the rest are chased up regularly and payment is envisaged.

A2 Dominion Homes Limited: Three invoices have now been referred to General Counsel and further reminder letters sent out for the rest of the outstanding invoices. This would soon be referred to General Counsel for further action if payment is not received.

Page 127 26 of 29 Outstanding Lift Debtors Appendix 5

Network Rail: Payment of the outstanding invoices is expected shortly.

Affinity Sutton: Invoices outstanding are chased regularly and payment is expected.

Page 128 27 of 29 Scheme of Governance - Budget Virements Appendix 6

Financial Regulation 9: “(b) With the agreement of the Director of Corporate Services, a Head of Service may transfer up to £50,000 from a budget head within that department’s approved budget to a budget head within another department’s approved budget, but if those budget heads are in different Directorates the agreement of the appropriate Director or Commissioner is also required.

(c) With the agreement of the Director of Corporate Services, Directors may transfer up to £150,000 from a budget head within that department’s approved budget to a budget head within another department’s approved budget.

(e) The Director of Corporate Services shall report all transfers under (b) and (c) to the Commissioner as part of the quarterly Financial Position reports.”

No transfers were processed in Quarter 1 that require reporting

Page 129 28 of 29

Page 130 Page

29 of 29

Appendix 10

Len Duvall AM

Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

Date: 4 September 2020

(Sent via email)

Dear Len

Budget Position for OPDC

Thank you for your letter dated 26 August re the above and for the opportunity to update you on the Corporation’s progress on implementing the requirements of the Budget Guidance 2021/22.

The Budget Guidance 2021/22 was issued on June 26 2020. Following this the Chairman of the Board and the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee were informed of the required savings and efficiency targets for 2020/21 and 2021/22.

OPDC has prepared its budget review via a series of meetings between myself as CFO and our Senior Management Team (SMT) during June and July to collectively identify and agree savings and efficiencies across the Corporation, the outcome of which was a repurposed draft 2020/21 budget which will be presented for formal approval to the next OPDC board meeting in October (although management is now working to the revised draft budget). Please note that these discussions did not include any written briefings or papers beyond working through our budget spreadsheets.

The revised draft budget for 2020/21 is shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – Revised Draft Budget 2020/21

Expenditure Directorate Programme Establishment Budget CEO £352,500 £688,000 £1,040,500 Corporate Operations £1,077,500 £1,366,000 £2,443,500 Delivery £1,140,000 £1,096,000 £2,236,000 Planning £440,000 £950,000 £1,390,000

Total Expenditure £3,010,000 £4,100,000 £7,110,000

Income

Pre-Application Discussions -£90,000 OPDC Planning Applications -£100,000 Delegated Planning Applications -£120,000 Total Income -£310,000

Total £2,700,000 £4,100,000 £6,800,000

The Corporation’s original budget for 2020/21 was £7.8m and the in-year savings and efficiency target of £1m has been achieved by carrying out a full budget review, which examined all areas of expenditure within the Corporation.

Page 131 Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the planned programme of the Communications and Engagement Team within the Chief Executive’s Office has been severely impacted and its work priorities have changed to focus on Covid response work rather than extensive public meetings and engagements. In view of this it was possible to apply significant savings to this area of work.

The Covid-19 Pandemic has also resulted in an inevitable slowdown in some aspects of the work within the Delivery and Planning Directorates. By reprogramming various work streams and reassembling a business case for the Local Plan, we have been able to identify efficiencies to support the savings target.

The Corporate Operations Directorate has also been able to identify efficiency savings due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The Corporation was considering options to relocate to its regeneration area in West London. However, this is now on hold, and this has contributed additional savings. The review has also identified other efficiencies within Corporate Operations.

I will be presenting the repurposed 2020/21 budget to the Board for approval at the next Board meeting to be held on the 13th October 2020 and to OPDC’s Audit and Risk Committee on September 14th

I am also working with OPDC’s SMT to review the 2021/22 budget and I will have prepared the Corporation’s budget submission by 30 November 2020 as required in the Budget Guidance 2021/22.

You requested details on the Corporation’s reliance on GLA funding streams. I can confirm that the Corporation is mainly funded by the GLA and has been since its inception in 2015, although we also receive an income via our planning fees as a statutory planning authority, and have been successful in securing a number of third party grant awards for specific projects a programmes.

Looking forward, OPDC will be seeking substantial additional funding from government to support the provision of new infrastructure and enabling activity to bring forward our regeneration ambitions.

Do let me know if you require any further information.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Marsh Chief Finance Officer

CC: David Lunts, Interim Chief Executive, Old Oak and Park Royal (OPDC) and Executive Director Housing and Land, Greater London Authority David Gallie, Executive Director of Resources, Greater London Authority Enver Enver, Assistant Director Group Finance, Greater London Authority

Page 132 Appendix 11

Len Duvall Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee City Hall The Queens’s Walk London SE1 2AA

4 September 2020 MOPAC26082020-D3431

Dear Chair,

Thank you for your letter dated the 26th August regarding the current and impending budget position for MOPAC and the financial planning taking place to deliver budget proposals against the timelines set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance.

As you will be aware the first significant reporting deadline related to the publishing of the Quarter 1 budgeting and performance reporting for 20/21. This was published on the 18th August in line with the GLA deadline and gives the most up-to-date information relating to the current MOPAC budget position.

The unprecedented financial challenges being faced in preparation and delivery of the 21/22 budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan make this process an exceptionally difficult one. MOPAC is currently undertaking detailed planning work with the MPS in order to deliver a draft budget for 21/22 in line with the GLA deadline of the 30 November. The proposed plans will be published shortly after this deadline.

In order to deliver the savings required there are a range of options being considered and discussed and it would be too premature, at this stage, to comment on the degree of reliance being placed on GLA funding streams.

The most important considerations at this point are to ensure that the savings targets are being delivered in such a way as to least impact the operational policing delivered by the MPS or the vital commissioning services delivered directly by MOPAC.

I welcome the enquiry as to progress and will provide updates as and when I am able to in addition to the formal quarterly reporting processes and monthly updates requested in the budget guidance.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Moore Ian Percival Chief Finance Officer MOPAC Chief Finance Officer MPS

EMAIL [email protected] Page 133 CITY HALL, THE QUEEN’S WALK, MORE LONDON, LONDON SE1 2AA

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 134 LONDON LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION T +44 (0) 20 3288 1800 Level 10, 1 Stratford Place, F +44 (0) 20 3288 1801 Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ www.QueenElizabethOlympicPark.co.uk

Appendix 12 Len Duvall AM Chair of GLA Oversight Committee City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA

(Sent via email only)

04 September 2020

Dear Len,

Budget Position for London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC)

Thank you for your letter of 26 August requesting a copy of the financial advice, prepared by LLDC in response to the Mayor’s Budget Guidance, published in June.

Like all functional bodies, LLDC faces significant financial pressures as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Following publication of the Mayor of London’s budget guidance in June, LLDC has repurposed this year’s budget to deliver in-year savings and efficiencies of £7.4 million. An update was published as part of the LLDC Corporate Performance Report (Q1 2020) in July 2020.

I should note that LLDC has delivered significant revenue savings in recent years and further year-on- year savings were already assumed across the four-year budget period, particularly at the London Stadium.

However, in response to the Mayor’s Budget Guidance, LLDC has undertaken extensive work with its Executive Team, including the London Stadium, to identify the additional savings required by the Mayor.

LLDC’s savings target has been ‘front-loaded’ to deliver more in 2020/21 than in the following year due to the impact of lockdown on London Stadium events this summer and the cancellation of the summer event programme and associated seat moves.

LLDC will reflect the resulting changes to its 2020/21 budgets and forecasts in the Quarter 2 Corporate Performance Report, where expected savings and efficiencies will also be reported against agreed targets; however, this is not due to be published until late-October. Therefore, we would be happy to share an early excerpt of this with you, along with a briefing, ahead of our appearance at the Budget and Performance Committee on 14 October.

Work is also well-progressed to identify and deliver the savings and efficiencies target of £2.1 million set for the 2021/22 budget submission.

LLDC’s revenue income is derived from trading income, income from London Stadium and from the Fixed Estate Charge but the Corporation is otherwise fully reliant on GLA funding.

Whilst not directly related to our revenue budgets, work to assess the impact on finances and timescales on the East Bank is underway. Construction was paused on the Stratford Waterfront site for three months due to Covid-19, but has now resumed, meeting social distancing guidelines, and work is underway to assess the impact on finances and timescales. All partners remain committed to East Bank’s success and the important role it will play in London’s long-term economic and social recovery. An update will be provided to the Assembly later this year.

As mentioned, both myself and Lyn Garner, LLDC Chief Executive, are due to appear before Budget and Performance Committee on 14 October to discuss amendments to this year’s budgets. We shall also attend the Committee again in December to discuss our 2021/22 budget submission.

I hope the above provides the information you require but please let me know if any further detail or clarification is required.

Page 135 LONDON LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION T +44 (0) 20 3288 1800 Level 10, 1 Stratford Place, F +44 (0) 20 3288 1801 Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ www.QueenElizabethOlympicPark.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

Gerry Murphy Deputy Chief Executive, LLDC

Cc: Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee David Gallie, Executive Director of Resources, Greater London Authority Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat, Greater London Authority Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, GLA Oversight Committee

Page 136 Appendix 13

Simon Kilonback Chief Finance Officer

Transport for London Palestra Len Duvall AM 1 97 Blackfriars Road Chair, GLA Oversight Committee London SE1 8NJ City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA

4 September 2020

Dear Len

Thank you for your letter of 26 August about Transport for London’s (TfL’s) budget position.

Your query relates to the financial advice we provided in line with the financial planning horizon set out in the Mayoral Budget Guidance, which was issued on 26 June. By that time, TfL had already set in motion actions to repurpose the agreed 2020/21 budget to deliver in-year savings and efficiencies as part of our Emergency Budget which was approved by the TfL Board on 2 June 2020. The Revised Budget, which was approved by TfL Board on 29 July 2020 factors in the Mayoral Budget Guidance.

TfL Emergency Budget – H1 2020/21

We took immediate, emergency measures in response to the catastrophic impact of the decline in passenger income as people followed Government guidance to only make essential journeys and while we continued to operate our services so key workers could travel.

Our Emergency Budget formed the basis of our H1 funding negotiations with Government and sets out our urgent response to the financial impact of COVID. It shows how we immediately repurposed our 2020/21 Budget to prioritise only critical spend and shrink costs by nearly £600m in the first half of the year. Measures included furloughing around 7,000 staff under the Government’s Job Retention Scheme, applying greater controls on headcount and the use of contractors, and the pausing of over 300 capital projects. We deferred a significant level of renewals and maintenance works prioritising those which were essential safety-critical.

The Emergency Budget, as approved by TfL Board, is appended to this letter.

Page 137

TfL Revised budget – H2 2020/21 and 2021/22

Our Revised Budget, as mentioned, was approved by TfL Board on 29 July. It is our latest financial forecast and covers the 18 months from the second half of 2020/21 to the end of the full financial year 2021/22. The Revised Budget is appended to this letter.

As set out in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance 2021-22, scenario 3 is considered the current best estimate and this is reflected in our Revised Budget. Similarly reflected are our obligations under the funding and financing agreement with Government including, inter alia, maximising service levels on all networks to full normal service and progressing an ambitious active travel agenda.

The Mayor’s Budget Guidance sets out the need to deliver in-year savings. Our Revised Budget identifies gross operating efficiencies above those we had already planned for pre-pandemic with in-year cost reductions and deferrals as implemented for the Emergency Budget continuing. Inevitably, there is added cost pressures in responding to the coronavirus such as through our enhanced cleaning regime.

Reprioritising our capital programme is integral to achieving savings and efficiencies. The principles underlying our investment programme were updated to reflect the post-COVID recovery landscape, the need to meet the conditions of the funding agreement, safety measures related to the virus and social distancing, active travel modes and affordability. We conducted a line by line review of all projects and categorised them based on these principles. The overriding priority continued to be on safety-critical projects, while also bringing forward some of the previously deferred maintenance and renewals work to support the increased frequency of service and the restart of surface proactive renewals following the two-year pause.

The Revised Budget also includes projects which were in line with organisational, Mayoral and Government priorities such as StreetSpace, LIPs funding stream and Liveable neighbourhoods which deliver schemes to encourage walking and cycling.

Supporting London’s recovery is also a guiding principle and from June, we restarted construction work in a phased way on a number of projects which were substantially complete and contractually committed, such as the Northern Line Extension to Battersea, the Bank Station Capacity Upgrade and the extension of London Overground to the new housing development at Barking Riverside.

Projects which aligned to our objectives but contingent on additional funding from either third parties or government and projects with weaker business cases or lower value for money were paused and not included in the Revised Budget.

The Revised Budget inevitably involves very difficult choices having to be made about the pace at which the beneficial projects we want to deliver can be funded and completed, and sets out which projects we intend to advance in the short term

Page 138

and which projects would require further certainty over Government support before they can be progressed.

We are now working with Government to agree funding for the second half of this financial year. The Revised Budget anticipates we will need up to £3.5 billion for the full year 2020/21, with up to £2 billion funding required for the second half of the year. Beyond that, we have asked for funding for 2021/22 - but as yet have had no confirmation as to how or when this will be forthcoming. It is anticipated that a further £2.9 billion will be required during 2021/22 which will enable the transport network to operate effectively and support the UK’s wider recovery.

Unlike most transport authorities around the world, the vast majority of our income is made up of fares. This means, given we may be facing a structural shift in the way in which people travel in the future, and a slow return to demand for our services, the current funding model simply is not sustainable. A longer-term funding solution, which is not solely dependent on public transport users, is needed if we are to continue investing in our assets and infrastructure.

Our current funding and financing agreement with Government runs until 17 October. In the coming weeks and months, we will be working with Government officials to secure further funding, with this agreement being reflected in our Business Plan and our full and final 2021-22 budget submission to the Mayor. In addition, our long-term capital plan looks at our capital investment over 25 years and will be published in due course.

Updates to GLA In line with the requirements set out in the GLA Budget Guidance, TfL’s Statutory Chief Finance Office, Antony King will continue to meet on a monthly basis with David Gallie, the GLA Executive Director of Resources and David Bellamy, the Chief of Staff to the Mayor.

Vernon Everitt, TfL Managing Director of Customers, Communication and Technology, continues to be a member of the Group Collaboration Board at which he will provide information on the progress of delivering collaboration initiatives.

I trust this is helpful. As ever, I will engage with you and colleagues on the Assembly as you consider the Mayor’s statutory budget proposals.

Yours sincerely

Simon Kilonback Chief Finance Officer

Page 139 Coronavirus Update TfL’s Emergency Budget 2020/21

TfL Board Page 140 Page 2 June 2020

1 Section 1 Recap of original budget Page 141 Page

Recap of original budget 1 Impact of COVID-19 on our 2 finances Emergency Budget assumptions 3 Updates since Emergency 4 Budget measures Risks and opportunities 5

2 2020/21 Budget: We continue to operate in a challenging climate: Recap of • The challenges we highlighted in the 2019 Business Plan remain priorities • Passenger income trends continue to be unpredictable. We saw a sharp deterioration in demand in the latter part of 2019. This is consistent with the latest news on economic performance. We remain cautious and our projections for 2020/21 reflect the lower end of the range of possible outcomes, as informed by forecasts from GLA Economics.

We are building financial resilience:

• Continued focus on efficiency and reducing core costs through robust cost control Maintaining 142 Page financial resilience through • We have increased capital financial over-programming in line with our actual trend of delivery. This more pragmatic approach means we can better plan our resources, freeing up cash to invest in the rest of our rebuilding our cash, and business. Should complexities arise we have schemes in the pipeline which we can bring forward while maintaining affordability within the financial envelope. better defining the • We have prioritised our plan so that we can as much as possible protect investment in our asset base so minimum cost to continue that safety, reliability and asset condition are maintained or improved. We continue to lobby the operating our network Government to acknowledge our need to modernise assets through projects such as replacing the signalling system on the Piccadilly line. safely and reliably We are embedding our separate tills: • Building awareness of the different economic models of our core business enable us to better understand how to plan for and deliver better performance

3 The challenges Our challenges Our response we faced pre- pandemic and our plan to Long term funding Intensive operating cost overcome £ control

Cancelled / deferred Page 143 Page Economic downturn projects

Crossrail Reduced renewals

Asset sales

4 Our key business Underground Buses and Streets Rail areas had strong The Underground forecast to hit Bus costs require subsidy and Rail did not generate a surplus trajectories to a over £1bn direct operating we planned to apply full but we planned to continue break even and surplus by 21/22, and was operating business rates to this investing in our assets from targeting to start covering its area, which would cover critical capital business rates to cover capital longer term capital costs for capital cost and indirect costs improve these services – baseline renewals including replacing DLR trains costs for and trams

Page 144 Page Direct operating surplus (£m) reinvesting in the 1600 £5 £0.3bn 1400 £0.25bn network 1200 £0.2bn 1000 £0.15bn 800 £4 £0.1bn 600 £0.05bn 400 Actual - 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 200 2010 data indexed at CPI (£0.05bn) 0 £3 (£0.1bn) 2010/11 2013/14 2016/17 2019/20 2022/23 (£0.15bn)

15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 We have kept buses costs in line with inflation despite changes to the network: Other capital (not committed) actuals forecast cost per operated kilometre +2.1% p.a. on average, improving safety, reliability and Other capital (committed) air quality without cost changes exceeding Baseline capital spend inflation (£) Net surplus/(cost) before baseline capital spend 5 We had a robust To keep our network safe and operable over the long term (25 years) we need to get to a level of steady state asset condition and we estimate this to be around £1.4bn p.a. plus maintenance. plan for Our Capital Strategy includes our Baseline as well as our discretionary Enhancements affording our Not to scale Baseline: cost of keeping our business going Enhancements long-term Maintenance Renewals Replacement of rolling ~£400m £650-850m stock & signals baseline Excluding directly- employed staff costs £400m-£800m

Part of our operating account Part of our capital account The way we articulate our Page 145 Page long-term investment We have approached this exercise by following a broad set of assumptions in order to allow us needs have evolved; we to try and understand the true run-rate cost of running our business. estimate the cost of Cost estimates are not unnecessarily constrained by affordability running the network to be £ Cost estimates are reflective of short term deliverability and any known commercial in the region of £1.4bn arrangements p.a. (2019 prices) plus London Underground fleet reflects continuous production across Piccadilly, Bakerloo and maintenance Central lines Surface baseline includes major asset renewals , Reliability and State of Good Repair and Trams fleet replacement

6 Section 2 Impact of COVID-19 on our finances Page 146 Page

Recap of original budget 1 Impact of COVID-19 on our 2 finances Emergency Budget assumptions 3 Updates since Emergency 4 Budget measures Risks and opportunities 5

7 We have seen Tube journeys % year-on-year change Bus journeys % year-on-year change

20.0% 20.0% huge journey 4% 2% 0.0% 0.0% reductions at the -5%-5%-5% -3%-4%-3% -4% -3% -8%-8%-9% -7%-5%-5% -7% -10%-11% -8% -8% -20.0% -13% -14% -20.0% -13% -19% -17% -21% end of 2019/20 -28% -26% -30% -40.0% -40.0% -35% -39% -40% -41% -46% -48% -60.0% -56% -60.0% -61% -65% Tube journeys down over -70% -68%-69% -80.0% -76% -80.0% -78% -81%-82%-82% -87% -85% -83%-84%-83%-83% -89% -91% 95%; bus journeys just -100.0% -93%-94%-94% -94%-95%

Page 147 Page -96%-96% -100.0% over 85% -120.0% -120.0% We lost over £80m in revenue per week at the Weekly (£5m) (£13m) (£38m) (£52m) (£19m) (£1m) (£2m) (£11m) (£23m) (£1m) peak, with these trends variance to -7% -20% -64% -92% N/A -5% -9% -38% -80% N/A continuing to today Budget

(£126m) total lost revenue in 2019/20 compared (£38m) total lost revenue in 2019/20 compared to budget in LU to budget in Buses

Lost TfL weekly income at peak journey reduction: (£84m) 8 We have had to shrink costs by Sources and uses: 1 April 2020 – 17 October 2020 (£bn) nearly £600m in Operating costs 20/21 Budget costs 3.5 0.3 0.6 0.30.3 £5.0bn H1 (H1) Renewals

New Capital Our Emergency Budget is Investment Emergency Budget Financing costs 3.3 0.1 0.4 0.30.3 £4.4bn funded 148 Page largely by the costs (H1) Government deal and Working capital £0.8bn of our own cash balances, where we are Funded by 1.6 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.8 forecasting to lose nearly £2.7bn income mostly from reduction in passenger journeys Funding deal (grant Capital & Passenger TfL cash + borrowing) Revenue BRR income and other 9 grants Our strategy to The impact on our revenue was too severe to be offset by cost reductions and therefore Government grant was required to fund the emerging gap rebuild cash balances meant £2,800m £2,400m we were able to £2,000m survive the first £1,600m £1,200m few months of £800m £3.2bn £400m £1.9bn COVID-19 H1 FY Page 149 Page P13 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 (£400m) 2019/20 2020/21 (£800m)

(£1,200m)

(£1,600m)

(£2,000m)

(£2,400m)

(£2,800m)

(£3,200m)

Actuals 2020/21 Budget Minimum cash reserve 2020/21 Emergency Budget 2020/21 Emergency Budget - no mitigations 2020/21 Emergency Budget - with grant support 10 Previous TfL net cost of operations (full year) In 19/20, before the impact of COVID-19 our year end position was £1bn better Business Plans Net cost of operations* than in 15/16 excluding the impact of the have been If General Grant removed Government grant COVID-19 impact focussed on breaking even on 0 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 net cost of -200 -400 operations 150 Page -600

-800

-1000

-1200

-1400

-1600 Our efficiency is better than the headline improvement as The impact of COVID-19 previous years were bolstered significantly sets us back by the General Grant, which we from our trajectory of no longer receive breaking even

11 * Historical net cost of operations has not been retrospectively updated for accounting changes and capital renewals reclassifications Section 3 Emergency Budget assumptions Page 151 Page

Recap of original budget 1 Impact of COVID-19 on our 2 finances Emergency Budget assumptions 3 Updates since Emergency 4 Budget measures Risks and opportunities 5

12 Assumptions in The following assumptions form the basis of the operating account: Emergency • Revenue: based on a 6 month crisis period followed by muted recovery to 55% of volumes Budget: • Both media and commercial rental income are also impacted by loss of footfall • Staffing: operating • we have furloughed over 7,000 staff in line with current Government guidance. If the account Government guidelines are extended we will review our arrangements accordingly. • Furloughing savings are approximately £15m per period. Salary will be topped up to 100%

Page 152 Page • we have released around 770 non-permanent labour • Service levels • London Underground - 50% services operated until end of June. From July it is assumed that full services will need to operate to manage increasing demand whilst complying with social distancing • Buses - current service levels (circa 80% of normal timetable) until late June. from then we will continue to ramp up to a 100% service level by November. Any marginal increase in demand will require 100% service levels to maintain social distancing • Note: Since this budget was set we are now working to maximise service levels on all networks to full normal service and are assessing costs of doing so in line with the request from Government (apart from Night Tube, weekend night buses and any other services agreed by the London Covid Transport Task Force) 13 TfL Group Operating account

2020/21 2020/21 Variance to 2020/21 Operating Account 2019/20 Emergency 2020/21 Variance to Budget to Budget to %Emergency % (£m) Actual Budget to Budget FY Budget FY P7 P7 Budget FY Emergency P7 Passenger income 4,751 349 2,736 (2,388) -87% 1,540 5,063 (3,524) -70% Budget 2020/21 Other operating income 1,018 231 523 (292) -56% 520 1,006 (486) -48% Total operating income 5,769 579 3,259 (2,680) -82% 2,060 6,069 (4,009) -66% Business Rates Retention 988 504 484 20 4% 969 969 (0) 0% Other revenue grants 117 6 6 0 0% 17 17 0 0% (£1.0bn) impact to our Extraordinary grants 0 1,300 0 1,300 0% 2,600 0 2,600 0% Total income 6,874 2,389 3,749 (1,360) -36% 5,646 7,055 (1,409) -20% operating account in H1 Operating cost (6,410) (3,325) (3,490) 165 -5% (6,363) (6,626) 262 -4%

Page 153 Page Core costs (5,741) (3,009) (3,106) 97 -3% (5,649) (5,782) 133 -2% (P1-P7) compared to our Elizabeth line (354) (209) (228) 19 -8% (433) (468) 35 -7% Project costs (280) (44) (110) 67 -60% (93) (221) 128 -58% Budget after revenue grant Exceptional costs (36) (64) (46) (18) 39% (189) (155) (33) 21% Net operating surplus/deficit 464 (936) 259 (1,195) -461% (717) 429 (1,146) -267% support of £1.3bn Net financing costs (435) (252) (252) 0 0% (466) (468) 2 0% Net surplus/(cost) of operations before renewals 29 (1,188) 7 (1,195) -16938% (1,183) (39) (1,144) 2933% Capital renewals (452) (131) (288) 157 -55% (332) (532) 201 -38% Net surplus/(cost) of operations (423) (1,318) (281) (1,038) 369% (1,515) (571) (944) 165% • Extraordinary grant make up:

 H1 (P1-P7): initial support of £1,095m plus additional £205m drawn down in same ratio of grant/debt

 H2 (P8-P13): assumed all grant support of £1.3bn to maintain £1.2bn cash reserve

14 • Under statutory reporting, an element of capital grant would be repurposed to the operating account Assumptions and principles in The Emergency Budget Investment Programme has been built around preserving the Emergency following projects as best possible:

Budget: capital • Substantially complete and contractually committed projects: Ensuring we complete account projects on-site which have been subject to the ‘safe-stop’ where our contractual obligations outweigh the benefit of pausing • Safety and operationally critical renewals, including the majority of surface asset renewals Page 154 Page which are critical following the two year pause on proactive renewals • Financially positive projects: either through revenue generation or operating cost savings, or The primary outcome was where pausing will cost more than it saves to minimise cash spend • Projects that support social distancing. The Healthy Streets funding has been refocussed on whilst we assessed measures to support social distancing priorities for longer term • Projects that support the economy • Third party funded projects, including the majority of air quality programmes

15 Our Emergency Capital account (excl. Crossrail) 2020/21 2020/21 Variance to 2020/21 2019/20 2020/21 Variance to Capital Account (£m) Emergency Budget to Budget to % Emergency % Budget Actual Budget FY Budget FY Budget to P7 P7 P7 Budget FY New Capital Investment (1,081) (388) (632) 244 -39% (808) (1,333) 525 -39% Total Capital Investment (1,081) (388) (632) 244 -39% (808) (1,333) 525 -39% £0.5bn of capital Funded by: Business Rates Retention (capital) 893 473 455 18 4% 910 910 0 0% enhancement deferrals are Property receipts and asset sales 151 14 67 (53) -79% 62 219 (158) -72% Borrowing (agreed with Government) 544 600 320 280 87% 600 603 (3) 0% offset by (£0.2bn) erosion Other capital grants 205 103 103 0 0% 123 123 0 0% Total 1,793 1,190 945 244 26% 1,695 1,856 (161) -9% in property receipts and Net capital account 712 802 313 489 156% 887 523 364 70% 0 0 2020/21 2020/21 Variance to 2020/21 asset sales 2019/20 2020/21 Variance to Page 155 Page Total Capital (£m) Emergency Budget to Budget to % Emergency % Actual Budget FY Budget FY Budget to P7 P7 P7 Budget FY Renewals (452) (131) (288) 157 -55% (331) (531) 201 -38% New Capital Investment (1,081) (388) (632) 244 -39% (808) (1,333) 525 -39% Borrowing assumed at Total Investment (1,533) (519) (920) 402 -44% (1,139) (1,865) 726 -39% NB: Under statutory reporting, an element of capital grant would be repurposed to the operating account maximum £600m in H1 Crossrail – no changes assumed per agreement with 2020/21 2020/21 Variance to 2020/21 Capital Account (Crossrail) 2019/20 2020/21 Variance to Emergency Budget to Budget to % Emergency % (£m) Actual Budget FY Budget FY Government (initial £505m Budget to P7 P7 P7 Budget FY Crossrail (1,027) (423) (423) 0 0% (725) (725) 0 0% plus further £95m in same Total Capital Investment (1,027) (423) (423) 0 0% (725) (725) 0 0% Funded by: ratio of grant/debt) Borrowing (CR) 0 396 396 0 0% 730 730 0 0% Crossrail funding sources 995 45 45 0 0% 48 48 0 0% Total 995 441 441 0 0% 778 778 0 0% Net Crossrail capital account (32) 18 18 0 0% 53 53 0 0% 16 Capital Area Included in Emergency Budget Healthy Streets • Borough and TLRN Streetspace programme: • Old Street Surface • On-site projects to finalise Air Quality & • Majority of schemes including: Environment • ULEZ Expansion and supporting investment • Bus electrification Note: this is a summary of the • RUC Strategic Options main 156 Page inclusions in the • Mayor’s Air Quality Fund Emergency Budget; this is not Surface assets • Reactive renewals (with minimal planned renewals) and technology • Hammersmith temporary bridge an exhaustive list • Victoria coach station fire systems • Body worn cameras • SITS Public transport • On-site projects including White Hart Lane station, West Hampstead and Overground capacity • Tram upgrades • NRM rear door modification • DLR Custom House • Rail Devolution (DfT request) • East London Line 18tph 17 • Royal Docks station upgrades (third party funded) Capital Area Included in Emergency Budget programme: LU step free access • London Underground stations where work is advanced LU enhancements • Contractually committed / substantially committed station works at Knightsbridge, LU, MPD and other Paddington, Tottenham Hale, • Connect radios, body worn cameras • 4LM ventilation LU assets • Renewals will continue but at a significantly reduced spend level Note: this is a summary of • Significant works include signalling and control life extension and Central line fleet life extension

the 157 Page main inclusions in the Major Projects • Phased restart in June: 4LM, NLE, Bank, Silvertown and Barking Riverside Emergency Budget; this is not • Trains design and manufacture for Piccadilly line and DLR trains continues and an exhaustive list associated enabling works paused for 6 and 4 months respectively. Some critical enabling works will continue. Commercial development • Safety-related works on portfolio • Essential estate maintenance • Contractually committed expenditure

18 We submitted Cash movements against 2020/21 Budget H1 emergency position against 2020/21 Budget – total variance (£2,444m) our forecast for critical £2,000m (£2,388m)

£1,500m Support of £1.9bn expenditure in required to return to minimum cash

2020/21 £1,000m £1 ,787m

£500m Total (£108m) additional

Page 158 Page running costs and staff costs no longer capitalised

Gross savings of £273m (£657m) (£855m) (£53m) (£500m) This was based on service £1 05m £4m (£30m) (£320m) levels ramp up and cost £67m (£78m) £402m (£1,000m) (£292m) £38m £101m saving assumptions by (£1,500m) pausing / deferring 2020/21 H1 Passenger Other BRR Cash after Operating Operating Gross other LU and bus Staff costs Financing Capital Property Borrowing 2020/21 H1 Grant Budget income - operating operating costs - projects savings COVID-19 no longer costs expenditure and asset support to COVID 19 income revenue service costs capitalised sales minimum projects and our staff on impacts reductions cash furlough.

Budget position adjusted for 2019/20 YE balances 19 Section 4 Updates since Emergency Budget measures Page 159 Page

Recap of original budget 1 Impact of COVID-19 on our 2 finances Emergency Budget assumptions 3 Updates since Emergency 4 Budget measures Risks and opportunities 5

20 We have secured £1.6bn for H1 (to 17 October 2020), which can be topped up to £1.9bn if needed Government Option to top up to funding for H1 Extraordinary Additional borrowing from the Public Works £1.9bn if it is Support Grant of evidenced that we £1.095bn Loan Board (PWLB) of £505m need to Page 160 Page Funding package (H1) This was based on service levels ramp up and cost 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 saving assumptions by £bn pausing / deferring • Government have recognised we must produce a balanced budget, and we must projects and our staff on maintain our cash balance of £1.2bn furlough. • Further to rating action downgrade, Government will support the Northern Line Train Services contract 21 The conditions Upon receiving the funding letter, we have started work on a Revised Budget which will underpin the Government support required for the second half of 2020/21 (H2). set out in the This will incorporate our updated assumptions against the conditions set out within the funding funding agreement, including: agreement mean Revenue we need to • Maximising all revenue, including improved bus income by increased use of card readers update our whilst protecting drivers assumptions • Reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and outlined proposals to Page 161 Page widen the scope and levels of these charges as requested by Government

Operational • Maximising service levels on all networks to normal service as soon as possible • Temporary suspension of free travel for Freedom Pass and 60 plus card holders during peak and the suspension of free travel for under 18s

Investment • Active Travel Plan to promote cycling and walking, including new segregated cycle lanes, closure of roads to through traffic and pavement extensions • Maximise the construction activity within TfL’s remit, where it is safe to do so, consistent 22 with the Emergency Budget assumptions Section 5 Risks and opportunities Page 162 Page

Recap of original budget 1 Impact of COVID-19 on our 2 finances Emergency Budget assumptions 3 Updates since Emergency 4 Budget measures Risks and opportunities 5

23 We produced the top-down Emergency Budget as an urgent interim measure to support funding negotiations. Key Risks and Since then a number of risks and opportunities emerged as we move towards a more detailed Revised Budget. Opportunities H1 to P7 in the Risks £123m £129m £129m Emergency Income Budget period Operating costs

Opportunities £240m £93m £31m Capital

In H1, 163 Page we have risks 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 totalling (£380m) offset by • This excludes refinement of passenger revenue scenarios. Work is under way to align to DfT scenarios opportunities of £364m to reflect latest social distancing measures, service levels and travelling publics changing habits. • Income: key income risk is Business Rates Retention which is uncertain as London businesses struggle In H2, there is a further during this crisis risk of (£303m) offset by • Operating costs: pressure on project safe stop/start and funding additional active travel and social distancing schemes opportunities of £268m • Capital investment: pressure to restart some of our projects due to safety criticality with little opportunity to make further savings

24 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Theme Description Detailed Risks & H1 H2 FY Things the Government asked Maximise service levels as soon as possible (£41m) - (£41m) TfL to do that was not part of the Re-introduce road user charging £73m £99m £172m Opportunities in Emergency Budget Return to front door boarding £35m - £35m the Emergency Sub-total £67m £99m £166m We need to restart our Tube - restart projects earlier than planned, some penalties and higher maintenance (£49m) (£31m) (£80m) Budget period investment programme and Scrappage scheme (£20m) (£15m) (£35m) support the economy Other Surface: social distancing measures, safe-stop and restart costs (£35m) - (£15m) Major projects: safe-stop / restart costs, 4LM scope review and NLE social distancing (£19m) (£47m) (£65m) Property earlier restart (£5m) (£21m) (£26m) Other (£16m) £8m (£8m) Page 164 Page Sub-total (£143m) (£106m) (£249m) We face some big risks which we Business rates retention (£100m) (£150m) (£250m) are trying to mitigate and had Media income (£23m) (£23m) (£45m) some contingency in the Emergency Budget LU modernisation supply chain risk to savings delivery (£5m) (£10m) (£15m) Other risks (£15m) (£24m) (£39m) Contingency £40m £60m £100m Sub-total (£102m) (£146m) (£248m) But we have some opportunities Bus concessionary income £107m £53m £160m that we are trying to realise Furloughing extended to October £23m - £23m Property sales (some timing between H1 and H2) (£6m) £26m £20m Other Surface income £23m £23m £46m Other opportunities £15m £16m £31m Sub-total £162m £118m £279m 25 Total cash (risk)/opportunity (£17m) (£35m) (£51m) Revised Budget 2020/21

Board 29 July 2020 Page 165 Page Draft

1 Section 1 Exec Summary Page 166 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

2 Executive This Revised Budget updates our Emergency Budget and will support the H2 20/21 funding discussions with the DfT • Our Emergency Budget, approved by Board on 2 June 2020, was a short term plan and immediate measure to see Summary us through the initial drastic impacts of COVID-19. Since the Emergency Budget was approved, we have ramped up services, restarted work on projects, created a bold new vision with Streetspace and responded to the Government conditions set within the funding and financing agreement. We have also updated our revenue models which show a slower recovery to c.30% demand longer term than previously forecast. • Performance against Emergency Budget to date (Section 3 of this presentation) shows we are in line with expectation on operating costs and capital expenditure. Where we had pushed renewals into H2 to preserve cash to survive H1, spend in this area is now increasing as we catch up to ensure our network remains reliable. Our revenue is still uncertain, and we have modelled several scenarios for how passenger numbers will recover from

Page 167 Page the impacts of COVID-19. The funding from government must cover our fixed operating and capital costs where our revenue has fallen and we can no longer afford to cover these costs ourselves. We have two clear • Our Revised Budget, with the support of Government funding, will enable us to maintain our statutory obligation to balance our budget, preserve our liquidity and keep our assets safe and operable. It also continues progressing priorities: some of the schemes identified in H1 - investment programme focused on safety, active travel including walking and cycling and social distancing schemes to play our part in London and the UK’s economic recovery. to restart and recover from • In November 2019, Crossrail advised they would require an additional £400-650m of funding to complete to COVID-19, and to project and we will need to continue to discuss how this is funded with government. Given the impact of the complete Crossrail and COVID-19 pandemic, Crossrail are continuing their work to understand the financial impact on the programme. • Longer-term, we need certainty from Government on funding. This will allow investment in further schemes to open the Elizabeth line. create the vital shift away from private car use and to ensure London and the UK continues to thrive.

3 Section 2 Recap Page 168 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

4 We have a TfL net cost of operations

In 19/20, the final forecast of our net cost of history of Net cost of operations operations would be over £1bn better than it was in strong If General Grant removed 15/16, if grant is excluded performance £700m

£500m

£300m

£100m

(£100m) Page 169 Page (£300m) (£203m) Prior to the pandemic, we (£500m) were on track to reduce our (£700m) (£900m) 2019 operating deficit for the (£1,100m) Business fourth consecutive year (£1,300m) (£1,479m) plan (£1,500m) forecast with a plan to breakeven in 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 2022/23. Our efficiency is better than the headline improvement as previous years were bolstered by the General Grant, which we no longer receive

5 We were TfL cash balance (excluding Crossrail account) rebuilding our £3.5bn Significant ramp up due to Elizabeth Line services cash reserves commencing – 2019 Business plan to increase £3.0bn resilience £2.5bn £0.6bn £2.0bn Risk buffer

Page 170 Page £1.5bn

£1.0bn £1.2bn Minimum cash reserves Minimum cash reserve of £1.2bn which is the £0.5bn equivalent to 60 days - 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 of operating expenditure Our policy requires that we keep a minimum of two months operating costs as cash which equates to £1.2bn. Above this, TfL targets holding another £600m buffer for known risks. Any cash above this will be available for prioritised investment projects. This resilience gives us greater flexibility in our approach to some major contracts e.g. signaling and rolling stock replacements.

6 Pre COVID-19 Underground Buses and Streets Rail each business The Underground was forecast to Bus costs require subsidy and Rail did not generate a surplus area had a hit over £1bn direct operating we planned to apply full but we planned to continue financially surplus by 21/22, and was operating business rates to this investing in our assets from targeting starting to cover its area, which would cover critical capital business rates to sustainable plan longer term capital costs for capital cost and indirect costs improve these services – baseline renewals including replacing DLR trains and trams

Direct operating surplus (£m) £0.3bn

Page 171 Page 1600 £5 1400 £0.25bn 1200 £0.2bn 1000 £0.15bn Our major business areas 800 £4 £0.1bn 600 £0.05bn had clearly defined 400 Actual - 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 200 2010 data indexed at CPI (£0.05bn) requirements to cover 0 £3 (£0.1bn) 2010/11 2013/14 2016/17 2019/20 2022/23 their baseline capital (£0.15bn) 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 We have kept buses costs in line with costs, grounded in strong inflation despite changes to the network: Other capital (not committed) actuals forecast cost per operated kilometre +2.1% p.a. on historic performance average, improving safety, reliability and Other capital (committed) air quality without cost changes exceeding Baseline capital spend inflation (£) Net surplus/(cost) before baseline capital spend 7 COVID-19 Tube journeys % year-on-year change Bus journeys % year-on-year change

20.0% 20.0% impact: 4% 2% 0.0% 0.0% We saw a huge -5%-5%-5% -3%-4%-3% -4% -3% -8%-8%-9% -7%-5%-5% -7% -10%-11% -8% -8% -20.0% -13% -14% -20.0% -13% -19% -17% -21% reduction in -28% -26% -30% -40.0% -40.0% -35% -39% -40% -41% -46% journeys at the -48% -60.0% -56% -60.0% -61% -65% end of 2019/20 -70% -68%-69% -80.0% -76% -80.0% -78%-81% -85% -82%-82%-83%-84%-83%-83% -87%-89% Page 172 Page -91%-93% -100.0% -94%-94%-96%-96%-94%-95% -100.0%

Tube journeys down -120.0% -120.0% over 95%; bus journeys down just over 85% Weekly (£5m) (£13m) (£38m) (£52m) (£19m) (£1m) (£2m) (£11m) (£23m) (£1m) variance to -7% -20% -64% -92% N/A -5% -9% -38% -80% N/A We lost over £80m in Budget revenue per week at the (£126m) total lost revenue in 2019/20 compared (£38m) total lost revenue in 2019/20 compared peak of the pandemic. to budget in LU to budget in Buses

Lost TfL weekly income at peak journey reduction: (£84m) 8 The impact of TfL net cost of operations (full year) In 19/20, before the impact of COVID-19 our year end position was £1bn better COVID-19 on Net cost of operations* than in 15/16 excluding the impact of the our net cost of If General Grant removed Government grant operations COVID-19 impact

0 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 -200 -400 -600 Page 173 Page -800 COVID-19 sees us return to -1000 2015/16 deficit levels -1200 -1400 excluding the impact of the -1600 Government grant -1800 Our efficiency is better than the headline improvement as The impact of COVID-19 previous years were bolstered significantly sets us back by the General Grant, which we from our trajectory of no longer receive breaking even

9 * Historical net cost of operations has not been retrospectively updated for accounting changes and capital renewals reclassifications We shrunk costs by nearly Sources and uses: 1 April 2020 – 17 October 2020 (£bn) £600m in H1 Operating costs 20/21 Budget costs 3.5 0.3 0.6 0.30.3 £5.0bn (H1) Renewals

New Capital Our Emergency Budget Investment Emergency Budget Financing costs 3.3 0.1 0.4 0.30.3 £4.4bn is funded 174 Page largely by the costs (H1) Government deal and Working capital £0.8bn of our own cash balances, where we are Funded by 1.6 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.8 forecasting a loss of nearly £2.7bn income mostly from a reduction in passenger Funding deal (grant Capital & Passenger TfL cash journeys + borrowing) Revenue BRR income and other 10 grants Section 3 Performance to date Page 175 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

11 Current impacts Performance to Passenger income: YTD actual is £114m more than Emergency Budget Covid-19 cost impacts: YTD actual and Emergency Budget

£100m £92m (£40m) date £84m (£32m) £75m (£30m) £60m Actuals (£23m) (£20m) (£20m) £50m Emergency (£13m) The operating account is budget (£10m) £25m £18m £16m £11m £6m performing strongly £3m £0m £0m Direct ops costs Safe stop and against the Emergency LU Buses Rail Elizabeth line stranded labour costs The earlier than expected start-up of front door boarding on Operating costs directly related to Covid-19 include specialist buses, and favourable movements in demand and yield on the Budget with an uplift in cleaning, PPE, and social distancing measures. Costs to date are Tube and buses have resulted in higher passenger income than Page 176 Page currently higher than the Emergency Budget due to the profile of budgeted. demand and strong cost spend and is adjusted for in the Revised Budget. Stranded labour reflects staff costs on projects which are capitalised when works are control. The earlier Recovery phase in progress. Capital expenditure trend restart of projects in our Key services – income trend £50m (£75m) (£49m) investment programme £40m (£38m) (£46m) £30m has seen our capital (£25m) £20m (£15m) (£16m) (£16m) £10m expenditure and some £25m £0m P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 operating costs brought Capital renewals New capital investment LU Buses forward As Government policy on lock-down eased in mid-June, There has been consistent and steady focus on safety critical passenger demand has started to increase on the Tube and works in our capital renewals programme. Most new capital Buses. investment projects restarted in P2. 12 Passenger Tube journeys and income: % year-on-year change Bus journeys and income: % year-on-year change* 0% journeys and 0% -20% -20% other operating -40% -40% income -60% -60%

The uplift in passenger income on (£17m) (£15m) -80% -80% (£18m) (£20m) -71% -71% (£17m) (£18m) -74% the Tube reflects higher number (£49m) -77% (£49m) (£45m) (£27m) -83% -83% (£44m) (£49m) -85% -100% -100% (£47m) (£46m) (£43m) (£51m) (£45m) (£48m) (£47m) -89% -87% -89% (£52m) -92% -90% (£21m) (£24m) (£23m) (£23m) (£23m) (£21m) of journeys following the easing -96% -96% -95% -95% -95% -94% -93% -97% -98% -99% -99% -99% -99% -100% of lockdown policy and an -120% -120% 06-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 11-Apr 18-Apr 25-Apr 06-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 11-Apr 18-Apr 25-Apr 02-May 09-May 16-May 23-May 30-May 04-Apr 02-May 09-May 16-May 23-May 30-May 04-Apr 2020/21 2020/21

improvement 177 Page in yield; buses have * Middle-door boarding was introduced on 20 April. As passengers were not required to touch seen a steady improvement in in demand between 20 April and 29 May could not be accurately recorded. journeys, as well as benefits from CC volumes and income: % year-on-year change ULEZ volumes and income: % year-on-year change 20% £2m 0% £0m Reintroduction of CC charge on 8% 0% continued concession 18 May 2020 0% -20% reimbursement. -20% (£0m) -40% (£0m) (£1m) (£1m) (£1m) -21% -20% Higher Congestion Charge and -40% -24% -24% -29% (£1m) (£1m) (£1m) (£1m) -60% (£1m) -49% -49% (£1m) -53% -51% -51% ULEZ income from earlier than -60% CC charge -58% increased to £15 -80% expected reintroduction of -80% from 22 June 2020 charging, extended charging hours -100% -100% (£1m) (£1m) (£1m) (£1m) (£2m) (£2m) (£2m) (£2m) (£1m) (£2m) (£3m) (£3m) (£3m) -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% and charge increase. -120% -120% 06-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 11-Apr 18-Apr 25-Apr 06-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 11-Apr 18-Apr 25-Apr 02-May 09-May 16-May 23-May 30-May 04-Apr 02-May 09-May 16-May 23-May 30-May 04-Apr 2020/21 2020/21 13 Operating account Operating Year to date, 2020/21 Operating account Actuals Variance to Emergency Variance to account (£m) Budget last year Almost £120m better than Emergency Budget, driven by Passenger income 216 114 112% (892) -81% 116 37 47% (97) -46% higher income from journey, Other operating income Total operating income 332 151 83% (989) -75% concession reimbursement Business Rates Retention 262 0 0% 4 2% and roads income; operating Revenue grant 2 0 0% (22) -92% Government furlough grant 32 3 10% 32 N/A costs (£30m) higher, a result of Total income 628 154 32% (975) -61% (1,436) (30) 2% (10) 1% higher 178 Page project spend, mainly Operating costs COVID 19 direct operating costs (23) (10) 77% (23) N/A from Streetspace schemes COVID safe stop and stranded labour costs (20) 12 -38% (20) N/A Net operating surplus (808) 124 -13% (985) -557% Financing costs (108) (0) 0% (6) 6% Net cost of operations before financing (916) 124 -12% (991) -1327% Capital renewals (47) (5) 11% 41 -47% Net cost of operations (963) 119 -11% (950) 7115%

Extraordinary revenue grant 365 0 0% 365 N/A Net cost of operations after extraordinary revenue (598) 119 -17% (585) 4380% grant

14 Net cost of Net cost of operations operations £119m better than Emergency Budget

External Internal £154m better than Emergency Budget (£35m) higher than Emergency Budget

(£800m)

(£700m) £114m (£35m) £26m (£13m) £23m £12m (£10m) (£2m) £2m (£5m) (£600m) £3m £1m Page 179 Page £5m (£500m)

(£400m) (£717m) (£300m) (£598m) Year-to-date upside (£563m) driven from stronger than (£200m) expected passenger (£100m) income and roads 2020/21 Passenger CC and Media One-off Furlough Other Core Investment Safe Coronavirus Other Elizabeth Capital 2020/21 EB income ULEZ income income income costs programme stop and direct exceptional line renewals income recognition stranded operating costs income labour costs costs

15 Capital account Capital account: year to date, 2020/21 Year to date, 2020/21 Capital account Actuals Variance to Emergency Variance to (£m) Budget last year Capital renewals and new capital investment higher New capital investment (133) (15) 13% 116 -47% Crossrail (152) 50 -25% 108 -42% than expected, a result of Total capital expenditure (285) 35 -11% 224 -44% Financed by: earlier than expected Investment grant 246 0 0% 5 2% Property and asset receipts 0 (7) -96% (16) -98% project restarts in earlier Borrowing 266 (2) -1% 332 -505% periods. 180 Page Crossrail borrowing 139 (24) -15% 139 N/A Crossrail funding sources 68 25 60% (177) -72% Other capital grants 21 (27) -56% (23) -52% Total 741 (34) -4% 260 54% Net capital account 456 1 0% 484 -1728%

Capital renewals (47) (5) 11% 41 -47% New capital investment (133) (15) 13% 116 -47% Total TfL capital expenditure (180) (20) 12% 157 -47%

16 Section 4 The challenge Page 181 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

17 The COVID-19 Furlough Scheme Pay Growth Retail Sales crisis has had a Furlough / Self-Emp. Support UK Median Pay (yr/yr change) Retail Sales (yr/yr change) 10m 5% +10%

9.4m 4% catastrophic 8 3% impact on UK 6 2% -10%

4 2.7m jobs, incomes 1% -20% 2 0% and economic -1% -30% 23 Apr 11 May 24 May 7 Jun 21 Jun 5 Jul 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 activity 182 Page Out of a workforce of 36m in Pay growth had been Year-on-year retail sales March 2020, 9.4m (26%) jobs consistently above 3% for growth had begun to slow have since been furloughed almost two years but has throughout 2019/20, turned and a further 2.7m self- abruptly turned negative. negative in March ’20 (-6.2%), employed workers have and fell to -23.3% in April April 2020 saw -0.7% year- ‘20. applied for Income Support. on-year growth in median Unemployment is forecast pay and subsequent months The decline slowed in May to to increase from 3.9% (1.4m) are likely to have seen -14.2%. for Q1 2020 to 8.5% by Q3, further falls. totalling 3.0m people.

Source: HMRC COVID-19 Statistics; Nomura Source: HMRC PAYE RTI Source: ONS Retail Sales Val y/y 18 The trajectory GDP Forecast Government Borrowing

+ 5% GDP (yr/yr change) Government Borrowing £55.22bn of economic 60 + 0% recovery is - 5% 2008 Financial Crisis Prelim. Feb-Apr '20 40 peaked at -2.1% (Not Q2) -10.4% - 10% uncertain, as is 20 £13.98bn - 15% PWC Forecast Q2 GDP -21.8% £ bn £5.67bn future fiscal - 20%

- 25% -20 policy '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Page 183 Page Preliminary results for 3mths to April ‘20 All headline Government Accounts figures show GDP falling by 10.4%. Even in the show unprecedented movement. In depths of the 2008 financial crisis, GDP’s comparison to last May: worst quarter was a drop of 2.1%. Borrowing is up 874%.

105 PWC Forecast GDP Recovery Baseline Receipts are down 28%; Spending is up 50%.

100 National Debt has grown by 25%. Smooth Exit 95 Bumpy Exit Should the Government choose to cut 90 spending to reduce this deficit this could 85 choke off the recovery and impact TfL 80 significantly. A no deal Brexit in January 2021 75 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 would exacerbate these problems. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Sources: ONS GDP Monthly Est.,PWC COVID-19 Update, ONS Public Sector Finances 19 London New York Singapore Our operating Transport for London (TfL) Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Land Transport Authority (LTA) 72% fares 38% fares 21% fares income is more 14% business rates 36% dedicated taxes 56% government grants 14% other operating income 7% state / local subsidies 16% government mgmt. fee reliant on users 3% other 7% other operating income than other In TfL, the removal of operating grant MTA has a reasonably high reliance on LTA plans, builds and maintains authorities has been covered by a higher reliance fares, but crucially gets over a third of Singapore’s transport infrastructure. on fares. Retained business rates are its income from a variety of dedicated The majority of funding comes from the second highest income source – taxation sources, including property government grants / management fees. although as growth in rates is not taxes from within the city. Note: LTA use net cost rail contracts

Page 184 Page retained this is not full devolution. Hong Kong Paris Madrid Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Île-de-France Mobilités (ÎDFM) Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid Direct comparisons in income 37% fares 38% fares 47% fares 39% international / property 43% employment tax 41% regional subsidy mixes are extremely 12% station commercial 6% national subsidy 9% property rental 16% government grants 5% city subsidy challenging (partly captured 3% other 1% energy tax 1% other by the notes on this page) but 2% other MTR’s ‘Rail & Property’ model, uses ÎDFM controls and coordinates public CRTM is the public transport authority is clear that TfL is now more Government-granted development transport operators in the Paris-area. for Madrid Region, and its reliant on passenger income rights in exchange for land premium A significant proportion of public responsibilities cover the provision of created by MTR schemes. MTR then public transport services to the than other similar authorities. transport funding comes from a reinvests the development profits back dedicated employment tax. inhabitants of the entire Madrid Region into transport. and associated municipalities. Note: funding covers some investment Note: MTR’s full revenues 20 International International Metro Demand (Source: COMET/NOVA) Comparators 120

100 Through our benchmarking groups we have access to 80 anonymised data from other international operators, most of whom have been moving out of 60 Page 185 Page lockdown slightly earlier than the UK. 40

These show that demand return is almost always slow and steady 2019passenger% of daily journeys average 20 without sudden jumps back to normality. Only Asian metros are 0 running at high levels of 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 109 113 117 121 125 129 133 137 141 145 149 153 crowding. Days since first COVID-19 case

London Europe S. America N. America Asia

21 Revenue modelling Sample of potential virus patterns • We have assessed inputs from a wide Single Peak Second Spike is based on range of sources to build these scenarios where the models range of outcomes can vary greatly • Modelling of the nature of the pandemic is informed by DfT’s own scenario planning, which considers Flattened Curve Sustained Peak possibilities like a single peak, multiple peaks or more sustained Page 186 Page infection. Our models consider a similar range

• Economic modelling is informed by both OBR and Bank of England forecasting as well as statements by bodies like Visit Britain

• Pace of reopening the economy is in general based on Prime Minister’s statement of May 10th

22 Section 5 Operating account H2 Page 187 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

23 Assumptions in • Model with a ‘second spike’ potentially driven by increased local lockdowns with social Revenue distancing measures assumed to occur in H2 20/21 Revised Budget: assumptions • Model projects volumes returning to 30% at the end the year compared to last year operating • Both media and commercial rental income are also impacted by loss of footfall account Road user • Re-introduced on 18 May (Emergency Budget (EB) assumed RUC return in July) charging • Temporary changes to CC hours, day and charge from 22 June

Furlough – • Up to 7,000 staff furloughed up to end of July (EB assumed until June), with further opportunity

Page 188 Page Government up until the end of October as we continue to assess the benefits scheme • We will continue to top up salaries to 100% throughout the furlough period

LU / Rail • c.95% service levels since mid May at peak times, excluding night tube Our Budget meets the Service level • (EB assumed 50% service until end of June and 100% service from July) conditions set out in the Government’s Buses Service • 85% of pre-COVID 19 since June, reach >95% in July and 100% by start of September. A full return to front door boarding by 11 July (94% at end of June) level funding and financing • (EB assumed c.80% until late June followed by a ramp up to 100% in H2) agreement Travel • Accelerated proposals to optimise the use of the available safe transport capacity, including the demand temporary suspension of free travel for Freedom Pass and 60 Plus card holders during peak proposals 24 TfL Group Operating account

Revised Budget vs Revised Budget vs Revised Budget Operating Account Revised Budget Emergency Budget Revised Budget H1 EB Budget Revised Budget H2 EB Budget 20/21vs EB Budget (£m) 20/21 20/21 H1'20/21 H2'20/21 20/21 Revised Budget Passenger income 631 282 684 (507) 1,315 1,540 (225) Other operating income 355 125 354 64 708 519 189 Total operating income 986 407 1,038 (442) 2,024 2,059 (36) 2020/21 Business Rates Retention 504 0 390 (75) 894 969 (75) Other revenue grants 6 (0) 9 (2) 14 17 (3) Government furlough grant 40 10 (0) (0) 40 30 10 H1 £0.4bn better: £0.3bn Total income 1,536 417 1,436 (520) 2,972 3,075 (103) Operating cost (3,450) (118) (3,242) (220) (6,692) (6,353) (338) operating performance driven Core costs (2,981) (11) (2,643) (16) (5,623) (5,597) (27) Elizabeth line (171) (0) (165) 29 (336) (364) 29 IP Opex (154) (110) (146) (96) (299) (93) (206) by revenue and £0.1bn Exceptional costs (145) 3 (288) (138) (433) (298) (135) Page 189 Page Net operating surplus (1,915) 298 (1,805) (740) (3,720) (3,278) (441) working capital Net financing costs (247) (4) (209) (1) (456) (451) (5) Net surplus/(cost) of operations before renewals (2,162) 295 (2,014) (741) (4,176) (3,729) (447) Capital renewals (148) (18) (248) (48) (396) (331) (66) Net cost of operations (2,310) 277 (2,263) (789) (4,573) (4,059) (512) FY (£0.3bn) worse: (£0.6bn) Extraordinary Revenue Grant 1,033 (267) 1,832 532 2,865 2,600 265 Net cost of operations after extraordinary revenue grant (1,277) 10 (431) (257) (1,708) (1,459) (247) operating and capital account performance offset by 2020/21 H1: Underlying £0.3bn better than Emergency Budget after restart of road user charging and updated passenger income modelling. Some additional pressure on costs to support social distancing and other schemes. £267m of £0.3bn working capital extraordinary grant no longer required (and £123m borrowing in capital account re-phased to H2) 2020/21 H2: Underlying (£0.8bn) worse than Emergency Budget due to passenger income modelling, business rates retention reduction and the extension of the Streetspace scheme previously not included in H2 of the Emergency Budget. (£0.3bn) of additional funding support required after rephasing £0.4bn of funding from H1.

25 Cash Bridge: Cash movement against Emergency Budget to maintain minimum cash reserves Revised Budget Funding support vs Emergency moves to H2 2nd virus spike Budget re-phased into H2

£0.1bn (£0.1bn) H1 £0.4bn better: £0.3bn £0.1bn (£0.3bn) £0.0bn operating performance driven £0.3bn £1.2bn (£0.1m) £1.2bn £0.7bn £1.2bn

by revenue 190 Page and £0.1bn (£0.4bn) working capital (£0.5bn) £0.5bn

£0.1bn (£0.1bn) FY (£0.3bn) worse: (£0.6bn) £0.1bn operating and capital account (£0.3bn) £0.3bn performance offset by (£0.2bn) £0.3bn working capital

H1 20/21 Passenger Other Operating Capital Working Funding H1 20/21 Passenger Other BRR Operating Capital Working Funding FY 20/21 Emergency income income costs & account capital support Revised income income costs & account capital support Revised Budget Renewals (grant / Budget Renewals (grant / Budget Cash borrowing) Cash borrowing) Cash Balance Balance Balance 26 Revised Budget £2,800m cash TfL 2020/21 cash balance £2,400m

H1 £0.4bn better: £0.3bn £2,000m H1 £0.4bn of funding operating performance driven support no longer required and rephased to H2 by revenue and £0.1bn £1,600m working capital

£1,200m Page 191 Page

FY (£0.3bn) worse: (£0.6bn) £800m operating and capital account FY (£0.3bn) additional funding support required performance offset by £400m compared to EB £0.3bn working capital

P13 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 2019/20 Revised budget 2020/21

Actuals 2020/21 original Budget 2020/21 Revised Budget Minimum cash reserve 2020/21 Emergency Budget 2020/21 Revised Budget (exc. change in funding)

27 Section 6 Investment programme H2 Page 192 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

28 To keep our network safe and operable over the long term (25 years) we need to get to a level of steady state asset Maintaining our condition and we estimate this to be around £1.4bn p.a. plus maintenance assets

Just keeping our existing assets safe and reliable on a The 20/21 Revised Budget prioritises safety critical works, with more proactive renewals and maintenance deferred to like for 193 Page like basis requires an 21/22 and beyond based on affordability. The chart below shows a significant proportion of our capital spend is classified as new capital investment / enhancements. The majority of this is continuing projects already started, with average of c.£1.4bn pa in 2019 some additional smaller schemes including air quality initiatives. To enter the next series of contracts to upgrade our prices, which includes aging infrastructure we must secure long term baseline funding. replacing life-expired rolling Revised budget capital spend vs. original budget, split into renewals and enhancements stock. This is a largely fixed 20/21 Original budget 1,333 533 cost to continue running the New capital investment 20/2120/21 Revised Revised budget budget 1,032 396 / enhancements level of service we Renewals currently do. 21/22 Original budget 1,288 665

21/2221/22 Revised Revised budget budget 1.306 805

29 We have taken a Projects contingent Central & desirable robust approach Critical projects on additional Paused projects projects to our funding investment but Projects classified as central Projects not currently in the Projects with weaker Projects classified as critical or desirable are financially revised budget but are still business cases or which are still need form part of our baseline are positive projects, or projects strongly aligned to our lower value for money which needed to maintain current which require short-term objectives and support we cannot reasonably make safety, reliability, capacity or action, e.g. safety, reliability, improved connectivity, the case to progress in the support from the asset condition, or legally capacity. housing and air quality in current climate will be required. Not progressing London. paused. Additionally, Projects that promote active Page 194 Page these projects would cause schemes which may be less Government travel modes or focus on unacceptable deterioration We will continue to make the aligned to our immediate short-term social distancing to the network. case for these schemes and requirements may be and enable us to reopen seek opportunities for paused. These may also be London safely and We have also included additional funding either schemes which are more sustainably fall within this projects which directly from third parties or discretionary in nature. category. We have refined our critical, support the conditions as government to enable them central, desirable and set out in the Government's Some longer-term capacity to progress. For example, we The definition for this funding agreement, reflecting and housing projects which are in discussion with category is consistent with deprioritise categories to changed funding have strong business cases MHCLG around the potential previous years, however arrangements and priorities and align to MTS and for housing funding for more schemes may now reflect updated priorities post-COVID-19 Government objectives may transport schemes that have to be considered also be considered here. enable new homes. temporarily unaffordable

30 We are continuing our key investments where possible Ultra Low Emission Zone Northern Line Extension Barking Riverside Ext. Continuing towards expansion Restarted works at Battersea Resumed works critical to major *full list of projects in appendix to N/S Circular in October 2021 and Nine Elms housing development Page 195 Page

These investments will improve connectivity and public transport, supporting low carbon Bank Station Upgrade Piccadilly line trains Rail Devolution lifestyles and choices for Resumed project to expand Design work continues, also on Continuing to work with DfT to station capacity by 40% new DLR trains transfer Great Northern those travelling around And additionally London In-progress step-free access schemes, Silvertown Tunnel, other station works (e.g. Tottenham Hale, Elephant & Castle), Direct Vision Standard, 4G on the Tube and many others. For Streetspace see later slide

31 TfL Group Capital account

Revised Budget Capital Account - TfL Revised Budget vs EB Revised Budget vs EB Emergency Budget Revised Budget H1 Revised Budget H2 Revised Budget 20/21 20/21vs EB Budget (£m) Budget H1'20/21 Budget H2'20/21 20/21 20/21 Revised Budget New Capital Investment (403) (15) (629) (210) (1,032) (807) (225) Total Capital Investment (403) (15) (629) (210) (1,032) (807) (225) Funded by: Business Rates Retention (capital) 473 0 437 0 910 910 0 2020/21 Property receipts and asset sales 42 28 74 26 116 62 54 Borrowing (TfL) 477 (123) 123 123 600 600 0 Other capital grants 65 (38) 53 32 118 123 (5) Total 1,057 (133) 687 182 1,744 1,695 49 H1 underlying investment in Net capital account 653 (148) 58 (28) 712 888 (176) 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 Renewals (148) (18) (248) (48) (396) (331) (66) line with Emergency Budget New Capital Investment (403) (15) (629) (210) (1,032) (807) (225) Total Investment (551) (33) (877) (258) (1,429) (1,138) (290) with some earlier restarted Page 196 Page

Revised Budget Capital Account - Crossrail Revised Budget vs EB Revised Budget vs EB Emergency Budget programmes offset by Revised Budget H1 Revised Budget H2 Revised Budget 20/21 20/21vs EB Budget (£m) Budget H1'20/21 Budget H2'20/21 20/21 deferrals 20/21 Crossrail Investment Programme (372) 51 (302) 0 (674) (725) 51 Total Capital Investment (372) 51 (302) 0 (674) (725) 51 Funded by: Borrowing (CR) 385 (11) 353 19 738 730 8 Crossrail funding sources 70 25 3 0 73 48 25 H2 (£0.2bn) higher investment Total 455 14 356 19 811 778 32 Net capital account 83 65 54 19 137 53 83 in main areas of LU, Surface and MPD programmes 2020/21 H1: underlying in line with Emergency Budget with £123m of borrowing no longer required in H1 and rephased to H2 2020/21 H2: underlying higher investment of (£0.2bn) with £123m of borrowing rephased from H1. Borrowing is capped at £0.6bn for the full year. NB: Under statutory reporting, an element of capital grant would be repurposed to the Crossrail: underspend in 2020/21 moved into 2021/22. Overall spend held to Budget as we await a Recovery Plan from CRL. operating account

32 Fleet £73m Structures & civils £27m Maintaining our . Completion of heavy overhaul (life . Critical civils structures reinforcement extension) of Victoria line including Grange Hill-Chigwell assets: London . Commencement of heavy overhaul (life Embankment extension) of Piccadilly, Jubilee, Met and . Ongoing civils asset resilience for Underground – Bakerloo lines priority locations . Engineering vehicles investment 20/21 full year Track £73m Signalling £7m *full list of projects in appendix . Track renewals at highest risk areas, . Central line signalling life extension to including works for new Piccadilly line fleet address immediate asset obsolescence . Points and crossings at critical locations . Bakerloo line signalling life extension Critical projects . Noise mitigation, security and access . Northumberland Park depot signals fencing work renewal

. The 197 Page 20/21 Revised Budget focuses Lifts & Power, Cooling & £21m on delivering the highest priority £18m Escalators . Continued delivery of priority escalator Energy . Power control system works to address renewals projects which are renewals (Liverpool Street, Marylebone and obsolescence in power network . critical for maintaining safety and Jubilee Line) Essential electrical works for . High priority lift works (including degradation and safety compliance reliability of the railway Tottenham Hale and Belsize Park) . LED light strategy . Over £100m of core renewals scope from 20/21 has been LU Technology & £22m deferred that will need to be Key Deferrals Networks . Connect Radio system essential caught up in later years upgrades . Less urgent track renewals . Station security systems & Asset . Slow down of Central Line Fleet renewal programme Management System developments . Slow down of station asset resilience work . Purchase and deployment of body worn . Lower priority lift, escalator and station works deferred cameras

Note: LU IP H2 spend above excludes completion of Step Free Access and Enhancement projects (£22m in H2) where exit costs exceed costs to complete. Social Distancing and other newly identified scope (£20m in H2) are also excluded. 33 TLRN Major highway £34m £12m Maintaining our infrastructure infrastructure Restarting proactive renewals across Progress design work for major assets: Surface carriageways, footways, lighting, renewals on bridges and tunnels to structures and other key assets keep them safe, reliable and operable. across the TfL road network. Examples include Including A40 – 20/21 full year Westway and Rotherhithe Tunnel. *full list of projects in appendix Bus, coach & river £11m DLR infrastructure Renewals include a focus on staff £22m Critical projects welfare facilities at bus stations and Renewal of signalling and trackwork refurbishments at Victoria Coach across the network including the Station. Also includes restart of repair/replacement of deteriorating proactive renewals of bus shelters and bogie frames on our fleet.

Our 198 Page priorities include the work on river piers. restart of proactive Surface £24m Trams £16m renewals following a Technology Costs to keep our key operational and Including all safety critical works maintenance systems going and replace across the tramlink including two-year pause, and them with modern equivalents when major track renewal. focusing on staff welfare necessary. facilities at stations Key deferrals in H1 The CV19 period has meant an effective extension of the two-year pause on proactive renewals across the TLRN and * Figures exclude over programming for deliverability Borough road networks by a further 4-5 months. However, proactive renewals are now restarting. across portfolios

34 Borough funding for 2020/21 in our revised budget is £15m higher than the level in our original budget. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, Streetspace and and in partnership with London’s boroughs we introduced a new range of initiatives under the programme “Streetspace”, which include temporary cycle lanes and wider pavements to enable social distancing whilst walking and cycling. The revised budget also includes additional funding for Hammersmith Bridge, both for the temporary bridge and to begin work on stabilisation of the main bridge, subject to planning permission and other Borough additional government funding being available for the main works. In H2 we are reintroducing LIPs funding stream and Liveable neighbourhoods – some of these schemes were paused in H1 due to the COVID-19 spend pandemic. Streetspace schemes delivered as of 10/07/2020: Schemes for delivery in July, August, September: Strategic Cycle Schemes Social Distance Schemes Strategic Cycle Schemes Social Distance Schemes • CS7 Upgrade – Newington Butts to Clitheroe Rd • Streatham High Street • Park Lane • Stoke Newington High Street • C4 Evelyn Street and Creek Road • Brompton Road • CS8 Upgrade P1 – Chelsea Bridge to • Camden High Street • CS7 Upgrade – Clapham to Balham • Finchley Road to College Lambeth Bridge • Brixton Town Centre • Cycleway 37 – Hackney to Westferry Crescent • Hampstead Road • Earl's Court Road • C9 East – Kensington Olympia to Brentford • Frognal Overground Station • C4 – Tooley Street to Rotherhithe • Borough High Street / St Thomas Street • CS7 Upgrade – A227 to Clapham South • A21 Bromley Road Page 199 Page • Euston Road • London Bridge ped one-way • CFR11 – Greenwich to Woolwich • Swiss Cottage Central & desirable • CS8 Upgrade P2 – Chelsea Bridge to • Nags Head • C4 – Tooley Street to London Bridge • Clapham High Street projects Wandsworth • Dalston – Kingsland High Street • East / West Link – Old Street to • West Wickham • Kingston to Kingston Vale • Tottenham High Road Marble Arch • Ewell Road • Holloway Road Underground Station • CS7 Upgrade – Tooting Broadway • A1010 North • Camden Road to Colliers Wood • C41 Between Euston and Holborn • Edgware Road • CFR3 Phase 2 – Clapton to Lea Bridge Cycleway 5 (Baylis Road) • Battersea Bridge ped one-way • A41 Corridor – Finchley Road London Streetspace will • Cycleway 27 realignment Waltham • Waterloo Road • A23 Oval to Streatham Forest • Angel • A10/A503 - CS2 Seven Sisters deliver bold and ambitious • C14 Queensbridge Road • Finchley Road – Goldhurst Terrace to • Vauxhall Mansell Street – C2/C3 Link Blackburn Road • CFR2 Western Section – Finsbury Park to • Victoria Royal College Street proposals for both social • Finsbury Park Station • Cycleway 9 West – Hounslow to Brentford • Camden High Street P2 • Marylebone Road – A501 distancing schemes and • Bishopsgate • A40 Western Extension of Cycleway 34 • Sandilands Bus Stop build out • CS7 Upgrade – Balham High Street • East Sheen Cheam • Balls Pond Road strategic cycling schemes • Edgware Road – Phase 2 • A21 – Lewisham to Catford • CS8 Extension – Chelsea Bridge to Lotts RoadCS7 Upgrade – A227 to Clitheroe Road 35 Area Projects Schemes which Surface Hammersmith Bridge stabilisation and strengthening (design well progressed but now contingent on government funding for implementation) are currently Tram rolling stock replacement (critical asset replacement in Long Term Capital Plan but not funded this year) East London Line 20 TPH (contingent on HIF bid) contingent on DLR Royal Docks (contingent on HIF bid) LU Step free Burnt Oak, Hanger Lane, Northolt, Boston Manor, North Ealing, Park Royal, Rickmansworth, Ruislip, Snaresbrook. access These schemes are vital in supporting our customers with mobility needs and we want to ensure funding for them is additional funding prioritised wherever possible and we will be actively seeking third-party funding for them. LU replacement Stratford additional entrance – cost estimate exceeded available funding – seeking redesign, Piccadilly line signalling, & enhancements Bakerloo line trains replacement LU assets c30% reduction of scope including points and crossing renewals, track replacement programme, air quality and noise reduction works, fleet renewal programme, revenue protection programme

Page 200 Page Commercial Spend deferred on existing housing programme and mixed-use development sites in line with revised programme start Development dates Ambitious plan which enables revenue growth from diverse commercial asset estate (offices, retail, arches, and homes) Projects contingent but requires significant capital investment which has been deferred and reprofiled on additional Growth fund The Growth Fund programme has been reviewed with 20/21 spend deferred to future years where possible without funding disrupting existing funding and financing packages which have considerable third parties contributions agreed. Decisions on schemes which may benefit from Growth Fund contributions in the future have been paused. Decarbonising We want to accelerate our MTS ambition of a zero emission bus fleet by 2037 to 2030. Accelerating our ambition to 2030, transport will secure 3000 UK green jobs in the North, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and could easily see that grow another 20% to 3600. 2030 saves an additional 3m tonnes of carbon. It requires £1bn of investment from HMG, but accounting for like for like replacement of buses, and very large fuel savings, this £1bn investment translates as a nearly £4bn gross investment into bus manufacturing.

Our EV Infrastructure Delivery Plan shows that we need an estimated 290 additional rapid charge points needed in London in 2020. Delivery could be immediately secured with £7.5 million (assuming 50% private sector delivery). Our plan also shows we need to continue the success of London’s GULCS with a further 2,300 on-street residential points in 2020, at a cost of £7.5 million.

An additional £125m investment will enable us to accelerate energy efficiency and schemes that re-use heat from our 36 tube network and lead to the creation of 600 green jobs in our supply chains. Area Paused projects Paused projects Healthy Streets • Croydon Fiveways – growth and development plans in the area are changing and we’re in discussion with the Borough about future plans • King’s Cross gyratory – we will still complete key safety improvements as part of smaller, targeted schemes Some schemes are paused • Bow Vision – paused pending clarity on development plans for the site given the financial Surface public transport • Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf – scheme currently unaffordable in the context of other walking and cycling priorities • Sutton Tramlink – development work paused as transport case is poor and there remains a significant funding gap challenge we face LU enhancements • South Kensington capacity upgrade – design and development tenders exceeded original project funding • Solar roof installation - original projects paused in favour of development of larger strategic solar installations to be funded using third party investment

Major Projects Major Project Detail

We are 201 Page primed to pivot our Crossrail 2 This scheme would deliver the single largest boost to rail capacity in London. The scheme’s investment towards a green affordability in the planned timescales has been further affected by current funding constraints and recovery, supporting sustainable our immediate priority in discussions with government is updating safeguarding. Costs: £23bn / travel and London's international Homes: 200,000 position. The major future Bakerloo line This scheme would unlock one of the poorest connected areas in inner London by Tube. transport schemes in the MTS are extension Significant funding support would be required to meet the capital costs of the scheme and still relevant and aligned to the our immediate priority is to safeguard the route. Costs: £5bn (to Lewisham) / Homes: 35,000 DfT decarbonisation plan, but we DLR to Thamesmead This scheme would unlock growth and improve cross river connectivity in relatively deprived need to be realistic in discussions areas. We are working with the developers on taking forward a feasibility study, including with Government about what will around funding options for the scheme. Costs: £0.8bn / Homes: 20,000 be affordable over the next decade and we cannot currently West London Orbital This scheme offers a new service on currently underused rail lines, supporting Old Oak Common afford to progress them all. growth. We are working with the local boroughs on taking forward a feasibility study, including around funding options for the scheme. Costs: £0.5bn / Homes: c.14,000

37 Our framework Transport is central to the recovery – not only to recover the economy but to for investing in a make it more robust and sustainable than before to cope with the challenges ahead. sustainable We have an offer that will support London and the UK: recovery Maintain Be a good custodian of London’s assets Our first priority is to maintain the long-term safety and sustainability of our assets; to ensure the network can reliably keep London moving, and is adapted and resilient to changes in climate and other economic shocks. Being a London has one of the good custodian is more than maintenance – it involves renewing assets with modern, well-adapted and energy most mature low carbon efficient solutions. Page 202 Page transport systems in Intensify Invest to unlock additional capacity and accessibility to all in the current network Europe and further, We already have great infrastructure in London; with comparatively small investments we can adapt existing relatively small, infrastructure to unlock massive amounts of untapped capacity making walking, cycling and public transport more attractive to more people. We can ensure capacity upgrades have low carbon at their core. investments will ensure that the system overall Accelerate continues to deliver major Transition to a zero emissions transport network as quickly as possible This period has highlighted schemes and ways of working that, if accelerated, can help London and the UK transition transport and to a zero carbon economy faster than we once thought possible, boosting the economy, creating jobs, tackling environmental benefits. inequality and make our supply chain more sustainable In order to be a viable business we must become more sustainable and drastically low carbon. We can get there in different ways depending on the level of funding support in place. 38 The Case for We have a proven track record of delivering schemes that grow the economy, support UK suppliers and encourage the transition to lower-carbon lifestyles. Investment Continuing to deliver these benefits is entirely dependent on secure, long-term funding that allows us to commit to the next generation of improvements to London’s transport network. Supporting the UK Economic Recovery Low-Carbon Lifestyles Supply Chain

Our network supports jobs and Projects in London don’t only support Across the UK, carbon emitted consumers. This is not just in the high- the economy of the capital. 43,000 UK from transport sources is falling Page 203 Page productivity clusters of central London jobs are supported by the TfL supply much more slowly than from other but in town centres all across Greater chain: 68% of which are outside of parts of the economy. We must London. Local rail services, buses, London. In the capital is enabled by accelerate progress – both by cycle links and high-quality pedestrian new trains constructed in Derby and decarbonising existing transport environments support shops and other Goole, buses from Falkirk, steel from sources, where we have made an businesses all over the capital – with Scunthorpe and hundreds of other important start but can go further, research showing users of these modes examples large and small. and by getting people out of their tend to spend more than car users. We now have a chance to stimulate a cars and onto bikes, pavements And our investments support the new era of British production. For and clean public transport. We can ongoing delivery of new homes that example, half of the new buses in the seize this moment of change to further support the viability of local UK are in London. Committing to the achieve much more in this area, economies. next generation of bus production now driving a green jobs revolution and will help British suppliers to lead the helping to kick start the UK world in new technologies. economy based around sustainability. See next slide for more information 39 For every pound spent on the London Underground investment programmes, up to 55p is received by Our investment workforces located outside of London 43,000 UK jobs are supported by TFL programme helps supply chain: 68% of which are outside of London. Over half of London and the these jobs are related to the investment programme UK’s recovery By spend, 55% of companies Examples of key suppliers with delivering the LU investment reliance on national capacity to deliver programme are located outside of London based programmes London and utilising regional workforces to provide design, engineering and professional services

Page 204 Page Road technology: in the delivery of the IP programme. Yorkshire, Birmingham, Coventry

Major projects: Manchester Rail: Redhill, Surrey

Manufacture – Derby

Northern Line extension Barking Riverside Zero Emission Bus Clean Energy HQ: Frimley, Surrey The extension between This extension will add 4.5km to The transition to a zero TfL potential Power Purchase Transport – Ashby Kennington and Battersea will the London Overground Gospel Oak emission bus fleet can secure Agreements could add Mobility - Poole & Goole, help regenerate the Vauxhall, to Barking line, and take it from 3000 jobs. A more ambitious significant demand for clean Yorkshire Nine Elms and Battersea areas by Barking to a new station at Barking target completion year could energy and create additional jobs supporting new jobs and homes. Riverside. see that grow by another 20%. in the UK renewables sector. 40 Section 7 Our approach: 21/22 Page 205 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

41 2021/22: initial Operating account 21/22 view of the Operating Account Revised Business Revised • Income (£2,301m): (£m) Budget 21/22 Plan 21/22 Budget vs • continued loss of passenger volumes operating BP into 21/22, stabilizing at around 80% Passenger income 3,541 5,412 (1,871) of normal demand together with a true up in concession pass income. Knock- account Other operating income 1,135 1,356 (221) on impact on other revenue streams of Total operating income 4,676 6,768 (2,092) road user charging, advertising and Business Rates Retention 774 986 (212) property rents. Current projections Other revenue grants 14 11 3 • Business rates retention loss of Government furlough grant 0 0 0 (£212m) Page 206 Page indicate grant funding of Total income 5,464 7,765 (2,301) • Operating costs +£56m: £2.9bn will be required Operating cost (7,008) (7,064) 56 • IFRS16 adjustment of £65m Core costs (6,010) (5,989) (22) • Underlying operating costs (£9m) to remain at the Elizabeth line (578) (655) 78 higher driven by Covid-19 specific IP Opex (261) (238) (22) costs including enhanced cleaning and minimum operating Exceptional costs (159) (182) 22 social distancing measures continue in Net operating surplus (1,543) 701 (2,244) 21/22, with low ability to make further cash reserve of £1.2bn savings other than those already Net financing costs (468) (551) 83 planned Net surplus/(cost) of operations before renewals (2,012) 150 (2,162) Capital renewals (805) (665) (140) • Renewals: (£140m): driven by safety critical Net cost of operations (2,816) (515) (2,301) work in London Underground and Rail Extraordinary Revenue Grant 2,940 0 2,940 Net cost of operations after extraordinary 124 (515) 639 revenue grant

42 2021/22: initial Capital account

Revised view of the Capital Account Revised Business Budget 21/22 (£m) Budget 21/22 Plan 21/22 • New Capital Investment (£18m): £136m of capital account vs BP 21/22 savings and deferrals in Property Development New Capital Investment (1,306) (1,288) (18) offset by higher spend across all major areas Total Capital Investment (1,306) (1,288) (18) predominately to catch up on work deferred Funded by: Business Rates Retention (capital) 930 930 0 from 2020/21 We have assumed no Property receipts and asset sales 249 135 114 Borrowing (TfL) 0 521 (521) new borrowing in Other capital grants 69 5 64 • Property receipts £114m: driven by catch up in Total 1,248 1,591 (343) asset sales originally planned in 2020/21 Net capital account (59) 303 (362) 2021/22 0 0 0 Renewals (805) (665) (140) • Borrowing (£521m): no new borrowing assumed

Page 207 Page New Capital Investment (1,306) (1,288) (18) Total Investment (2,111) (1,953) (158) • Other capital grants £64m: rephasing of works from 2020/21

Revised Capital Account Revised Business Budget 21/22 (£m) Budget 21/22 Plan 21/22 vs BP 21/22

Crossrail Investment Programme (263) 0 (263) • Crossrail: Crossrail Limited will present their Total Capital Investment (263) 0 (263) Recovery Plan to the Crossrail Board in due Funded by: Borrowing (CR) 12 (75) 87 course. This will inform the funding discussions Crossrail funding sources 205 70 135 with Government alongside TfL H2 funding Total 217 (5) 222 Net capital account (46) (5) (41)

43 Cash Bridge: Cash movement year on year to maintain minimum cash reserve of £1.2bn 2020/21 to 2021/22 £0.8bn

£1.1bn

(£7.0bn) £3.5bn Page 208 Page

The 2-year Revised Budget £1.2bn £1.2bn highlights the need for ongoing Government support in order for us to continue £2.9bn (£0.5bn) operating essential transport (£0.8bn) services. £2.9bn of support is (£0.1bn) (£0.1bn) (£1.8bn) required in 2021/22. 20/21 Passenger Other income BRR Operating Financing Renewals Capital Working 21/22 Grant 21/22 Revised income costs costs account capital Revised support Revised Budget Cash Budget Cash required Budget Cash Balance Balance Balance (without funding support) 44 Section 8 Risks and opportunities Page 209 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

45 Key Risks and Probability weighted risks and opportunities for remainder of 2020/21 Opportunities H1 H2 in the Revised Budget 2020/21

In H1, we have weighted risks totalling (£108m) offset 210 Page by weighted opportunities of £49m

• Income: In H2, there is a further • Key risk is passenger income modelling in regard to social distancing and Business Rates Retention • Main opportunity is passenger revenue if we have a slower recovery but no more spikes in the virus (model 4) (£237m) of risk mitigated by • Operating costs: £247m of opportunity • Risks include additional maintenance costs due to capital deferrals and additional costs to support schools returning mainly driven by passenger in September income modelling • Capital investment: • Key risk around IP programme due to impairment costs arising from projects put on hold • Opportunity of 4LM access and protection, by not providing replacement bus service

46 Section 9 Conclusion Page 211 Page

Executive Summary 1 Recap 2 Performance to date 3 The Challenge 4

Our approach: . Operating account H2 5 Investment Programme H2 6 2021/22 view 7 Risks and Opportunities 8

Conclusion 9

47 The Emergency Budget set out a funding requirement of £1.9bn for H1 and £1.3bn for H2, £3.2bn in total. Funding ask For Revised Budget, there is a (£0.3bn) net increase in funding requirement to £3.5bn.

2020/21 £bn H1 H2 FY Base funding 1.6 1.3 2.9 Additional facility 0.3 - 0.3 Total Emergency Budget 1.9 1.3 3.2 Base funding 1.6 1.6 3.2 Additional facility 0.3 - 0.3 Page 212 Page Re-phased (0.4) 0.4 - The 2-year Revised Budget Total Revised Budget 1.5 2.0 3.5 shows a requirement for However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around future social distancing assumptions and the threat of further virus £2bn funding in H2, and spikes. This could produce a revenue range of approximately +£500m /-£235m. Any funding deal will need to cover our highlights the need for relatively fixed operating costs and capital expenditure, dependent on what the revenue outcome is. ongoing Government support 2021/22 Revised Budget: in order for us to continue • Current projections indicate grant funding of £2.9 billion will be required in 2021/22 with a high degree of variability operating essential transport around revenue projections. We have assumed no new borrowing in 2021/22. services Crossrail: • Crossrail Limited will present their Recovery Plan to the Crossrail Board later in due course. This will inform the funding discussions with Government alongside TfL H2 funding. 48 A sustainable We are managing our core We have taken a robust We need certainty on funding financial position approach to our investment to commit to the next funding model is but still need support from generation of transport Our revised budget is prudent, the Government improvements required to with tight spend control on our ensure London operating and capital account. We We have refined our investment We have a proven track record continue to be exposed to a high programme to reflect updated of delivering schemes that: has the transport degree of uncertainty in the priorities. economic outlook and on our Grow the economy network it needs income streams, in particular Safety is always our top priority passenger revenue. Supporting the UK Supply to support We will pursue schemes which Chain Page 213 Page support social distancing and a Securing Government funding for Encourage the transition to economic shift away from a car-based H2 is key to further medium-term low-carbon lifestyles recovery and planning. recovery growth We will pursue financially positive Continuing to deliver these projects. benefits is entirely dependent on secure, long-term funding. The investment programme will: • Enable us to open London safely and sustainably • Promote Active travel • Encourage economic recovery

49 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 214 Appendix 14

Len Duvall AM, Chair of GLA Oversight Committee

City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk David Gallie Chief Finance Officer, Greater London Authority

Sent via email

26 August 2020

Dear David,

Greater London Authority (GLA) Budget Questions

I am writing to you in your capacity as the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) Chief Finance Officer with a series of important questions on the GLA budget.

You will already be aware of the context in which the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer operates, of course, but I shall repeat it here for the sake of clarity and transparency: • The GLA is a single public body and so, while it has two component budgets commonly referred to as ‘GLA:Mayor’ and ‘GLA:Assembly’, it has a single Chief Finance Officer. • That Chief Finance Officer is responsible for the provision of financial advice to both the Mayor and the Assembly. • This approach, embedded in statute, has served the GLA well for the last 20 years and has ensured the impartial provision of financial advice to all 26 Members of the Authority. • The Assembly’s role in general terms is primarily one of scrutiny but, for the purposes of setting the GLA Group budget each year, it acts as the co-executive with the Mayor so as to provide a safeguard in terms of the level of taxation levied on Londoners and of the level of funds allocated to each public body in the Group. • As a result, the Assembly’s budget scrutiny work has a slightly different character from its other scrutiny work as it builds up to a decision-making role. Hence we have valued the support which has been provided over the years by the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer in both regards – that is, both budget scrutiny and budget co-executive. • The Assembly has specific responsibility for the detailed allocation and administration of its own component budget and the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer provides support in that regard too, as set out in statute.

Assembly Members would be grateful if you could respond to the appended questions by Friday 4 September. When providing your response please copy in the GLA Oversight Committee’s Principal Committee Manager, Davena Toyinbo ([email protected]).

Contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 8039 1285; Mob: 07521 266519;Page Email:215 [email protected]

If you feel it appropriate, you can of course reply in two parts – one part marked suitable for publication and one part marked confidential. If you do submit confidential material, please make clear on what basis it is being treated as confidential.

I am also writing to the functional bodies’ chief finance officers to see what advice they have prepared for their bodies, with a particular focus on their degree of reliance on GLA funding streams and what approach they are advocating for their bodies in that regard.

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Cc Susan Hall AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat

Enc: Appendix 1

Page 216

Appendix 1

1. Legal advice I have recently exchanged correspondence with the Mayor’s Chief of Staff on budget matters. My letters are dated 22 June, 2 July and 14 July and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff’s responses are dated 26 June, 7 July and 7 August. I enclose those letters. You will see that I, in my letter of 14 July, specifically requested a copy of the legal advice – with its date and source – on the approach being adopted for in-year savings targets for the 2020- 21 Group budget. I did not receive a response on that very important point from the Mayor’s Chief of Staff in his response of 7 August. Please could you share that legal advice with the Assembly, including its source and date? Given the Assembly’s budget role, and the importance of the issue in hand, I am sure you will agree that this is an entirely legitimate request for me to make on behalf of the Assembly. In providing the legal advice, could you please also explain the statutory basis on which you are predicating the level of the 2021-22 control totals for bodies on the achievement of 2020-21 savings targets?

2. Financial planning horizon The Mayor’s Chief of Staff’s response of 7 August refers to “professional advice” which he has received setting out that it is not currently possible to plan for the financial year 2022-23 and beyond. Can you please provide that advice to the Assembly, including the date on which it was provided and the title of the postholder providing it, as it would seem natural for us to assume that it came from you or one of your members of staff? Again, this is an important issue and one in which the Assembly has an entirely legitimate interest.

3. Comprehensive financial advice to all 26 Members of the Authority It seems remiss to us that in this period of extraordinary financial challenges, you have not provided comprehensive financial advice to all 26 Members of the Authority; an approach which would both reflect the GLA’s statutory arrangements as set out above and reflect standard practice across local government in the sense that full council would be briefed on this degree of financial challenge. Could you please set out in a full written briefing to all 26 Members of the Authority the financial position of the GLA as you and your staff have best analysed it, including all the relevant facts, figures, scenarios, implications and risks? We appreciate that some of this material will have appeared in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance of 26 June but that is the Mayor’s document and serves a different purpose. It is not for the Mayor to provide impartial financial advice to Assembly Members. Furthermore, there will be other pieces of relevant financial information which would not have appeared in that document for a variety of understandable reasons. That does not mean, though, that Assembly Members can or should go without that information.

4. MHCLG funding package of 2 July The Mayor’s Chief of Staff has told us that much of the detail of the MHCLG funding package of 2 July remains unclear. Can you please update us on that funding package, setting out the range of financial scenarios for which you think it is reasonable to plan at present? Could you please also update us on conversations with Government more generally speaking? Is the GLA seeking additional assistance for the GLA:Mayor as well as for parts of the wider Group?

5. Comparison of budget growth You will be aware that the Mayor’s Chief of Staff has been quoting a figure of 19% budget growth for the Assembly component over the last four years. We understand this calculation to be based on the Financing Requirement for that component budget. We are keen to establish the equivalent figure for the GLA:Mayor

Page 217

budget. We consider it a fair approach to take into account specific grants in this calculation and also the last year of the Olympic precept in 2016-17. One significant source of funding not caught by this approach, though, is the windfall in additional business rates received by the GLA each year in recent years, We understand that they are received late in one financial year, placed in reserves in that same financial year and then drawn down from reserves in the following financial year, thus falling outside of the budget comparison as currently constituted. Please could you provide us with the amounts this windfall in additional business rates has benefitted the GLA:Mayor budget in each of the following financial years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, using the year in which the funds were received as the basis for providing the data? It seems entirely reasonable for us to be provided with this information so that we can understand the relative budget positions within the GLA.

6. Assembly component Can you please set out what financial support you have provided to the Assembly on its own component budget as it grapples with challenging targets set by the Mayor? Please note that we would not expect you to provide this support directly to Members but to the Executive Director of Secretariat as the budget holder at senior officer level, who would of course relay any key points arising to us as Members. Please could you also set out how, in your financial advice to the Mayor in relation to setting savings targets, you have taken into account the specific budget issues facing the Assembly for its own component budget, noting that the budget flexibilities available to the GLA:Mayor budget are far greater than they are for the Assembly component budget?

7. GLA financial outturn for 2019-20 We note the contents of Mayoral decision form (MD) 2645, signed by the Mayor on 12 August, setting out the GLA’s financial outturn for 2019- 20. How can the Mayor approve transfers to and from earmarked reserves when the reserves are presented in summary form only? Why is a full reserves table not being presented as it was for the previous year’s financial outturn (i.e. 2018-19), when it was included in the Q4 report submitted to the 12 June 2019 meeting of the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee? Given the level of interest recently shown by the Mayoralty in the detail of the Assembly’s reserve movements, is it not incumbent for you to provide sufficient information on which to scrutinise movements in Mayoral reserves?

8. Repurposed GLA budget for 2020-21 We note the contents of MD2666, signed by the Mayor on 7 August, setting out the repurposed GLA budget for 2020-21. The Budget and Performance Committee will examine its contents in due course. Before that, though, can you please tell us why updated programme budget tables are not included at programme level, showing the original programme budgets next to their revised level? What does this say about the organisation’s commitment to transparency? We ask because programme savings comprise just over 70% of the total savings set out in this MD.

9. Proposed relocation of City Hall to The Crystal You will know that the Assembly has deep concerns arising from the manner in which the proposed relocation of City Hall to The Crystal has been handled corporately within the GLA. Given that the matter is clearly “novel, contentious and repercussive” to use the GLA’s phraseology, even as a consultation exercise, then it would seem obligatory for an MD to be signed off immediately before the launch of the consultation exercise. Please set out what advice you provided in this regard and set out the basis on which an MD was regarded as unnecessary? One of the advantages of an MD being completed and published would have been for the proposal to have been

Page 218

set out more thoroughly and be able to be assessed more rigorously in a transparent and robust manner. For example, the financial implications section would no doubt have provided us with an opportunity to examine and challenge the financial case, including certain details of that case such as the reference to a dilapidations reserve. Can you please set out for us the financial case for the proposal in the manner in which you would do for an MD, including an options appraisal and factoring in all the known financial aspects, including what we presume – from general market conditions - to be the very strong likelihood of an offer of reduced rent from the current City Hall landlord?

10. London Power Co. Limited As a wider enquiry, we see that MD2645 (referred to above) includes a recommendation relating to GLA financial support for London Power Co. Limited, the GLA’s energy company. Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 of the MD support that recommendation. Why is it written in such a way so that it is difficult for the reader to understand what has happened and why a change in approach is needed? The MD states that “some of the costs … are attributable to the operation of the Company” – as opposed to what? How did it come about that such a large amount (£1.1m) was wrongly attributed? What does the standalone and unexplained statement “there will not be a cash payment” signify or mean? Does the conversion of this element of the budget to a loan therefore represent a budget saving to the GLA? Most importantly, given the experience elsewhere of local authorities setting up energy companies, how do you assess the financial risks involved in this venture and what arrangements have you put in place to monitor developments? In a wider sense, do you think public reporting of the activities of GLA owned companies is sufficient at present, given the size of their operations?

Page 219 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 220

Appendix 15

Len Duvall OBE Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee By Email

Friday 4 September 2020

Dear Len

Thank you for your letter of 26 August. You are right to set out the Assembly’s important role in the GLA Group budget setting process, although of course its formal decision-making powers are limited to the overall level of council tax and how the resulting income is allocated to each organisation. I set out responses to your questions.

Legal advice The Mayoral Decision (MD2666) that confirmed the approach taken to deliver the in-year savings targets against the 2020-21 budget was reviewed by TfL Legal; their advice is set out in section 6 of this public document. It is proposed that savings made in 2020-21 will generate an underspend in that year against the agreed Budget which will then help offset the anticipated losses of business rates and council tax from 2020-21.

The 2021-22 savings targets assume that all members of the GLA Group meet their 2020-21 savings target. The Mayor’s Budget Guidance set out that if members of the Group do not deliver their 2020-21 savings targets this will compound the scale of savings required to be made in 2021-22.

Financial planning horizon I provided private verbal advice to the Chief of Staff that the Mayor’s Budget Guidance should only have a time horizon of two years for the revenue budget. This advice reflected the huge uncertainty over the GLA Group’s funding which is described in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance and was discussed at the Budget and Performance Committee meeting on 7 July.

Comprehensive financial advice to all 26 members of the Authority I will happily supply a full written briefing to the Assembly on the GLA Group’s overall latest financial position and expect to do so by the middle of September. If the Assembly or any of its members require further information in addition to this, the information in the Mayor’s Budget Guidance and the advice I provided at Budget and Performance Committee on 7 July, then I will of course be pleased to help.

MHCLG funding package of 2 July I will happily include details of MHCLG’s funding package and an update on asks being made of Government in the written briefing I will supply.

Page 221

Comparison of budget growth The final draft budget each year sets out the allocation of additional income to be received, beyond the levels budgeted in the draft budget, both for the existing financial year (where applicable) and the forthcoming financial year to which the budget relates. The additional funding is allocated to Mayoral priorities both within the GLA: Mayor’s budget and the budgets of the GLA’s functional bodies. These are set out in a table in Part 1 of the final consolidated budget document. However, in summary:

In 2020-21, of the additional £143 million allocated in the final budget, £75.5 million (53 per cent) was allocated to the GLA: Mayor budget - all for specific programmes - principally for the Green New Deal (£50m) and the Young Londoners Fund (£25m);

In 2019-20, of the additional £228 million allocated in the final budget, £28.8 million (13 per cent) was allocated to the GLA: Mayor budget - principally to the capital programme reserve and a number of other specific programmes;

In 2018-19, of the additional £267.3 million allocated in the final budget, £180.4 million was allocated to the GLA: Mayor budget - £75 million of which was additional funding earmarked for the Strategic Investment Fund, in accordance with the agreement between the GLA, London Councils and HM Treasury and £40 million of which related to partner funding for the East Bank development being undertaken by LLDC. Once these items are excluded, £58.2 million (22 per cent of the overall total additional income) relates to core Mayoral activities, of which £30 million was to establish the Young Londoners Fund; and.

In 2017-18 of the additional £27.1 million allocated in the final budget, £4m was allocated through the GLA: Mayor budget - again to a specific project – the new Museum of London, as part of the GLA’s agreed funding contribution.

As such, the additional income received has been allocated to specific one-off projects and purposes, rather than to support ongoing expenditure.

Assembly component As part of the development of the Mayor’s Budget Guidance and following its publication, I have had a series of informal discussions with the Executive Director of the Secretariat and the officer leading the scrutiny of the Budget. As part of those discussions, I have offered my services to the Assembly whenever you and other Assembly Members require.

As part of the Mayor’s Budget Guidance you will note that the Assembly has target savings some 20% lower than the rest of the GLA. This decision reflects the Mayor’s recognition of the different circumstances of the Assembly, compared to the rest of the GLA.

GLA financial outturn 2019-20 Transfers to and from reserves are approved by myself, as Executive Director of Resources, as part of closing the accounts. Transfers within the year are approved by the normal decision process and by me as Executive Director of Resources. The published draft accounts include the movement on reserves.

A full reserves table was not included in MD2645 to try and make the key points from the GLA outturn clearer to a reader. Further, the full movement on GLA reserves has only just been concluded in the draft accounts as we had to await returns from billing authorities on

Page 222

business rates and council tax. The accounts will not be published in their final form until later in the year once they have been audited and will be subject to approval by the Mayor.

As set out in earlier correspondence, I am happy to discuss and agree with your officers the level of financial information you wish to see which best balances the wish for clarity as against detail. For ease, I attach the movement on the reserves as a result of closing the draft 2019-20 accounts as an attachment to this reply.

Re-purposed budget for 2020-21

The appendix to MD2666 sets out the savings made against each programme budget. The information was included, and the format chosen to be clear, transparent and unambiguous about where the savings are being made. There were other adjustments also made to the March programme budgets such as carry forwards. To show the original programme budget next to the revised figures becomes more complicated with the danger that the table would become more complex. A layout as suggested may, for some readers, result in the data being less clear and transparent. Obviously, there are many ways to display the data and each person has their own preference, but the figures are shown as they are in order to be clear about the value of saving against each programme.

Proposed relocation of City Hall to the Crystal

There is no general requirement in Mayoral Decision-Making in the GLA – the rule book for decisions drawing on the Mayor’s powers – or otherwise to approve consultation exercises through a Mayoral Decision Form. Indeed, it is a longstanding convention, made explicit in previous iterations of the Scheme of Delegation but now well-established through the General Delegation to Senior Staff, that consulting on a proposal (whether ‘novel, contentious or repercussive (NCR)’ or otherwise) is a delegated matter, to be considered and carried out by senior staff ahead of a decision by the Mayor. Mayoral decisions (again, NCR or otherwise) are then taken at the point the evidence informing the decision itself, including any consultation, has been gathered and set out, unless there is a specific legal requirement to the contrary. This is as per the template for Mayoral decisions, which prompts that a summary of consultation responses carried out is made to inform the decision.

In this case, and generally, it is the final decision that is NCR, not the act of consulting, which is in fact a normal precursor to a significant decision such as this. Where there is doubt as to whether a matter is NCR, it is at the discretion of one of the following to provide clarification: The Mayor, the Chief of Staff, the Chief Officer, myself as ED of Resources and the Governance team. In this case, such clarification was not necessary.

Following proper consideration of the consultation responses, any consequent Mayoral Decision related to this matter will include a full financial appraisal of options and will cover all known financial aspects of the proposal, including the landlord’s revised offer.

London Power Company

It was originally envisaged that the only costs that London Power Co Limited (the Company) would incur for the year ending 31 March 2020 would be those costs in operating the Company from the official launch date of 13 January 2020, which were outlined within the Business Plan and approved by MD2482 (that agreed the establishment of the trading

Page 223

subsidiary). In summary, these costs were GLA staffing resource that would be recharged to the company, expert legal & energy consultancy and audit costs.

The change in approach detailed within MD2645 is simply due to ensuring compliance with International Accounting Standards relating to set up costs associated with the promotion of activities to help generate revenues. Following on from advice from the GLA’s Chief Accountant and audit, the costs outlined within MD2405, specifically for brand development and marketing to deliver an effective and impactful visual identity that will enable the company to meet its objectives fall into this definition. There were other costs such as pre- procurement, development and research that did not meet this criterion and was therefore not required to be transferred to the company.

The transfer of the additional costs of £1.1m does indeed represent a saving to the GLA as the expenditure approved via MD2405 had originally been budgeted for within the GLA’s revenue budget for 2019-20. As part of the Authority’s closing of accounts process, this saving was transferred to the GLA’s reserves.

The standalone statement “there will not be a cash payment” simply means given that the costs were already incurred by the GLA, the transfer of costs and the financing of the loan was carried out by standard accounting entries on the ledger. There are no further cash movements between the two entities.

The financial risks of this venture were considered thoroughly in development of the proposals for London Power. They were an important reason why the Mayor decided to take a ‘white label’ approach, instead of setting up a full-service company as done by Nottingham and Bristol councils and recommended by some Assembly Members. This decision significantly limits the financial risks the GLA is exposed to, as it is our provider that is ultimately exposed to movements in energy market prices, not London Power or the GLA.

Further as part of the Business Planning process, which takes into consideration changes in the market environment via specialist industry specific consultancy services and based upon this, a financial model with four separate scenarios were developed ranging from ‘worst case’ to ‘best case’ for which the financial position of the company is being monitored and assessed against.

In order to monitor the developments of the company, both a Working Group and a Steering Committee have been created. The Working Group is made up of senior officers and meets fortnightly to monitor working-level operations, including monitoring and mitigating risks as they arise. The Steering Committee, including all London Power company directors, meets monthly to monitor performance of the company and provide a steer on key decisions. In addition to relevant GLA officers, two market experts are also invited to the Steering Committee to provide insights (through both meetings and regular reports) into changes in the energy market and the potential impact of these changes on the company. This allows for early identification of risks arising from the wider market, both through regulatory changes and through the actions of other market actors. Monthly company dashboards are prepared for interrogation by the Steering Committee. These dashboards provide details on customer acquisition and detailed finance reporting on costs and income; all of which is benchmarked against the scenarios in the Business Case. The dashboards also provide detail on market performance, benchmarked against other suppliers in relation to tariff pricing. The performance of the procured supplier is also reported within the dashboard through monitoring against the multiple contractual service level agreements This level of monitoring

Page 224

identifies the financial performance of the company and highlights risks that require mitigation.

The public reporting of the GLA owned companies is in-line with the statutory requirements of all limited companies. Any further public reporting may disadvantage the GLA companies against their competitors and impact their ability to meet their objectives in the short, medium and long-term. Where information can be shared beyond this, we do so through the GLA’s performance dashboards, responses to questions to the Mayor and discussion at Assembly committee meetings.

Yours Sincerely

David Gallie Executive Director of Resources

Page 225 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 226 Agenda Item 5

Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 October 2020

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out recent actions taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee notes the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with Assembly party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, namely to approve and adopt the revised version of Standing Orders, at Appendix 1.

3. Background

3.1 Under Standing Orders and the Assembly’s Scheme of Delegation, certain decisions by Members can be taken under delegated authority. This report details those actions.

At its meeting on 3 September 2020, the Assembly resolved:

That in relation to urgent matters only, a general delegation of authority in respect of the Assembly’s powers and functions (apart from those that cannot under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 be delegated) to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman of that Committee, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and any relevant committee Chair(s) be agreed, for the period from 3 September 2020 to 17 December 2020.

3.2 Following that meeting, the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee, consulted Assembly party Group Lead Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE on the revised version of Standing Orders.

4. Issues for Consideration

4.1 Following consultation, the Chair agreed the revised version of Standing Orders, attached to this report and their adoption.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 227

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no direct financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – GLA Standing Orders, September 2020 (Circulated separately) Appendix 2 – Proposed Changes to GLA Standing Orders

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Member Delegated Authority Forms: 1221 [Proposed Changes to GLA Standing Orders]

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager Telephone: 020 8039 1285 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 228 Appendix 2

Proposed Amendments to Standing Orders

1.1 THE AUTHORITY’S STANDING ORDERS

Application: applies to the Authority, and (in respect of paragraphs C to E and I) to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. The Assembly, following consultation with the Mayor, may make Standing Orders for the Authority, and (following such consultation) subsequently vary or revoke them under sections 36(1) and (8) of the GLA Act 1999. Neither the Assembly nor the Mayor may delegate their functions under section 36 of the Act concerning the Authority’s Standing Orders[1].

B. A printed copy of these Standing Orders shall be given to the Mayor, to each Member of the Assembly and to the Independent Persons appointed under Section in accordance with Section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011.

C. Later decisions of the Assembly will prevail over any earlier decision of its committees to the extent that the Assembly’s decision is contrary or inconsistent with the other body’s decision, but subject to any applicable rule of law or natural justice.

D. The ruling of the Chair (or other person presiding at the meeting in question) of the Assembly and its committees as to the interpretation or application of any of these Standing Orders, or as to any proceedings of such bodies, shall be final following the advice of the Executive Director of Secretariat (or the post holder undertaking those duties).

E. In accordance with section 36(2) of the GLA Act 1999, the procedures of the Assembly and those of any committees of the Assembly shall be regulated by these Standing Orders of the Authority in accordance with paragraph L below [2].

F. Subject to any other provision of the GLA Act 1999 or any other enactment which regulates or provides for the regulation of the procedure to be followed by the Mayor, Standing Orders of the Authority may:

in accordance with section 36(3) of the GLA Act 1999, make provision for regulating the procedure to be followed by any Member of the Assembly by whom functions of the Authority are exercisable pursuant to arrangements under section 54 of that Act;

Page 229

(1) in accordance with section 36(4) of the GLA Act 1999, regulate the procedure to be followed by the Mayor or by the Assembly in discharging any functions of the Mayor or the Assembly, to the extent that the functions:

a. consist of consultation, or any other interaction or relationship between the Mayor and the Assembly; or

b. are exercisable by the Mayor in relation to the Assembly or by the Assembly in relation to the Mayor;

(2) in accordance with section 36(5) of the GLA Act 1999, make provision for any other matter for which provision by Standing Orders of the Authority is authorised or required by any other provision of that Act or any other enactment;

(3) in accordance with section 36(7) of the GLA Act, make different provision for different circumstances.

Changes to Standing Orders[2]

G. Any motion to add to, vary or revoke these Standing Orders (other than one to suspend any such provision during a meeting) shall, when proposed and seconded, stand adjourned without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Assembly and the Mayor shall be consulted upon the motion and his/her response reported to the meeting.

SPECIAL QUORUM: Changes to these Standing Orders under this paragraph may only be effected if at least two-thirds of the whole number of the Members of the Assembly is present when a proposal to do so is voted upon. Although two-thirds of the Assembly must be present, the vote to approve changes only requires a simple majority of votes cast by Members present and voting (see section 53(1) of the GLA Act 1999).

Suspension of Standing Orders[2]

H. Standing Orders may be suspended by the Assembly so far as regards any business at a meeting at which their suspension is moved, but such a suspension will have effect for that meeting only.

SPECIAL QUORUM: A motion to suspend Standing Orders under this paragraph may be moved without notice provided (if so moved) if at least two-thirds of the whole number of the Members of the Assembly is present when the motion is voted upon.

Page 230

I. Unless expressly prevented in the text, the provisions of specific Standing Orders may be suspended by a committee so far as regards any business at a meeting at which their suspension is moved, but such a suspension will have effect for that meeting only.

Interpretation of Standing Orders

J. The following will have effect for the interpretation of Standing Orders, unless the context otherwise requires, but subject to paragraph L below and any express provision in Standing Orders to the contrary:

(1) “Assembly” means the London Assembly, and reference to a meeting of the Assembly includes a Mayor’s Question Time;

(2) “Assembly Budget Meeting” or “Budget Meeting” means a meeting where the Assembly considers the Draft Consolidated Budget or Final Draft Budget in accordance with section 87 and paragraphs 5 (Assembly consideration of the Mayor’s Draft Budget) and 8 (Approval of Mayor’s Final Draft Budget by the Assembly) of Schedule 6 to the GLA Act 1999;

(3) “Authority” means the Greater London Authority which consists of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly;

(4) “business management committee” refers to the committee designated from time to time by the Assembly as that committee for the purposes of Standing Order 11.4 below;

(5) “Budget Related Motion” has the meaning given to it in Standing Order 6.2 below;

(6) “committee” for the purposes of these Standing Orders means an ordinary or advisory committee, or a subcommittee;

(7) “Chair” means the Chair of the Assembly, or of a committee or subcommittee as the case may be, and includes any person presiding over a meeting in accordance with Standing Order 2.1;

(8) “Formal Budget Amendment” has the meaning given to it in Standing Order 6.2 below;

(9) “GLA Act” refers to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended by relevant legislation, including the GLA Act 2007);

Page 231 (10) “Mayor” means the Mayor of London;

(11) “Member” includes (as relevant) co-opted members of advisory committees;

(12) “Non-MQT Business” means that part of an Assembly meeting called as a Mayor’s Question Time where the Assembly considers items of business other than the Mayor’s periodic report or puts questions to the Mayor, or to staff required to attend the meeting, in accordance with sections 45(3), 52(3) or 70(5) of the GLA Act 1999;

(13) “Non-Budget Business” means that part of an Assembly meeting called as a Budget Meeting where the Assembly considers items of business other than the Draft Consolidated Budget or Final Draft Budget in accordance with section 87 and paragraphs 5 and 8 of Schedule 6 to the GLA Act ;

(14) “Staffing Committee” refers to the committee designated from time to time by the Assembly as that committee for the purposes of Standing Order 11.5 below;

(15) “in writing” includes emails and faxes except where specific requirements are applied in relation to petitions, motions etc;

(16) a reference to the Leaders of the Political Groups includes a reference to their nominees, and “Political Group” and “Leader” has the meaning given to it in sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as applied by section 57 of the GLA Act 1999;

(17) a reference to a particular post includes any person acting up into that post, or another post to which the relevant functions have been wholly or mainly transferred;

(18) reference to an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument includes any subsequent amendment, repeal or revocation.

(19) “Coronavirus Regulations 2020” refers to The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 No.392; which remain valid until 7 May 2021.

K. Subject to paragraph J above, other words and phrases are as expressly defined in the relevant Standing Order or in the corresponding footnote in the relevant “Notes and Definitions” section. In the event of any ambiguity, the Legal Adviser to the Assembly shall advise on their proper

Page 232 meaning. (Otherwise the notes and definitions contained in those sections are for the purposes of clarification only, and that section does not form part of the corresponding Standing Order.)

Application of Standing Orders

L. The Authority’s Standing Orders shall apply in accordance with the “Application” section to each individual Standing Order, subject to anything to the contrary, or to any restriction, limitation or condition stated in the text of that Standing Order.

M. These Standing Orders form part of the Authority’s Corporate Governance Framework. The documents that make up the Framework include, but are not limited to, the Financial Regulations, the Contracts and Funding Code, the Code of Conduct (a statutory Code) and the Schemes of Delegation of Functions of both the London Assembly and the Mayor of London. The documents that make up the Authority’s Corporate Governance Framework are approved when required either or jointly by the Assembly and/or Mayor as appropriate.

Notes and definitions

[1] The bar on delegation under paragraph A applies to the Mayor and Assembly and is a requirement of s36(9) of the GLA Act.

In accordance with the Coronavirus Regulations 2020, the Assembly can delegate this function to vary standing orders, in consultation with the Mayor, for the period up until 7 May 2021.

[2] Note that paragraphs G and H above (including the requirement for a special quorum) do not apply to any addition or variation of Standing Orders at a Budget Meeting made in accordance with Standing Order 6.6 below.

Page 233 1.2 MEETINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY AND ITS COMMITTEES

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. The Assembly and its committees shall hold their meetings in accordance with the Annual Timetable, agreed or varied from time to time by the London Assembly or its business management committee[1], and (if applicable) the rules and procedures approved by that committee, under Standing Order 1.3G, but subject always to:

(1) the Chair of the Assembly’s powers to call an extraordinary meeting of that body under Standing Order 1.7; and

(2) Members’ rights to requisition meetings under Standing Order 1.8 below.

B. Before the expiry of 10 days after the date of the poll at an ordinary GLA election[2], the Assembly shall hold a meeting to elect the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Assembly.

C. Within 25 days[3] after the date of the poll at an ordinary election the Assembly shall hold a Mayor’s Question Time.

D. Formal notices of individual Assembly and committee meetings will be published in accordance with Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and Standing Order 1.11 below.

E. Unless the body in question decides otherwise, every meeting of the Assembly and its committees will be held at City Hall, be open to the public[4] in accordance with section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 and shall commence during normal office hours.

Notes and definitions

[1] The GLA Oversight Committee has been designated as the committee for the purposes of Standing Order 11.4 responsible for the Assembly’s business management functions.

[2] An ordinary GLA election refers to the regular poll to elect the Mayor and all 25 Members of the Assembly every 4 years. Section 52(2), GLA Act requires the first Assembly meeting after an ordinary GLA election to be held within 10 days (including weekends, public and bank holidays) of the poll.

[3] This is required by s52(4), GLA Act.

Page 234 [4] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that for the period up until 7 May 2021 “open to the public” includes access to the meeting being through remote means including (but not limited to) video conferencing, live webcast, and live interactive streaming and where a meeting is accessible to the public through such remote means the meeting is open to the public whether or not members of the public are able to attend the meeting in person.

Page 235 1.3 THE ANNUAL TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS

Application: paragraphs A to C below apply to the business management committee only; paragraphs D to H below apply to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. The business management committee will approve an annual timetable of meetings (“Annual Timetable”) for meetings of the Assembly and its committees for the forthcoming Assembly year, giving indicative dates and times for when meetings are to be held, subject to paragraph F below. The Assembly will then consider and confirm the Annual Timetable at its first meeting of the Assembly Year[1].

B. Before approving the Annual Timetable, Group Leaders will be consulted on its contents, as will the Mayor as regards the proposed dates for Mayor’s Question Times and the Assembly Budget Meetings.

C. The Annual Timetable will designate the following meetings (the agendas for which may include other items of business as the Chair of the relevant body considers appropriate) subject to paragraph G below, if applicable:

(1) a sufficient number of Assembly meetings as “Mayor’s Question Times” (“MQTs”) in accordance with section 52(3) of the GLA Act, to ensure that at least 10 are held in that calendar year[2];

(2) one Assembly meeting designated as the Annual Meeting, to be held at least once in every calendar year in accordance with Standing Order 1.4 below;

(3) two “Assembly Budget Meetings” in accordance with Standing Order 6:

- one to consider the Mayor’s Draft Consolidated Budget (“the Draft Budget Meeting”) to be held on or before the 1st day of February[3] each year; and

- another to consider the Mayor’s Final Draft Budget (“the Final Budget Meeting”) to be held before the end of February[3];

and such meetings may be combined with a Mayor’s Question Time if the Chair of the Assembly considers it appropriate;

(4) other Assembly meetings (“plenary meetings”) for the purpose of transacting such other general business as the Chair determines;

Page 236 (5) meetings of committees as and when required.

D. The detailed content and format of a meeting shall be for the Chair of the Assembly or committee, to determine, but subject to any decision of the body in question to the contrary.

E. The dates and times of meetings in the Annual Timetable are indicative only, and will be confirmed by a formal notice calling the meeting published under Standing Order 1.11 below.

F. The publication by the Executive Director of Secretariat in accordance with Standing Order 1.11 below of a formal notice calling a meeting shall be conclusive as to the date, time and place it is to be held.

G. The approval of the Annual Timetable under paragraph A above shall not prevent the Assembly or its business management committee from subsequently varying it. In addition, either body may approve rules and procedures from time to time prescribing the maximum number of meetings a committee may hold in an Assembly year and how any additional extraordinary meetings (other than those requisitioned under Standing Order 1.8 below) may be called.

H. The approval of the Annual Timetable, and any rules and procedures under paragraph G above, is subject to the provisions of Standing Order 1.7 and 1.8 below.

Notes and definitions

[1] “Assembly year” refers to the period between Annual Meetings of the Assembly.

[2] Under s52(3) of the GLA Act it is a statutory requirement to hold 10 MQTs per calendar year. The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 which remain in place until 7 May 2021 temporarily provide flexibility in relation to this requirement and state MQT will be held “on up to ten occasions in each calendar year,” and additionally relax the requirement for 21 clear days between MQT meetings.

[3] These deadline dates are set out in paragraphs 3(4) and 6(6) of Schedule 6 to the GLA Act.

Page 237

1.9 NORMAL NOTICE PERIOD FOR MEETINGS{1}

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. A meeting of the Assembly for Mayor’s Question Time shall be called by not less than 14 clear working days’ public notice being given in accordance with section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972, unless it is the first such meeting after an ordinary GLA election, in which case the notice formally calling the meeting shall be given as soon as practicable after the date of the poll[21].

B. All other meetings of the Assembly and of its committees shall be called by not less than 5 clear working days’ public notice[32] being given in accordance with sections 100B and 100E of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), unless the relevant Chair has given his/her consent to it being called on shorter notice and to the items of business on the agenda being urgent under Standing Order 1.10A or a meeting is called using the powers in Standing Order 1.7.

C. If a committee was scheduled to meet at the time chosen for an extraordinary meeting of the London Assembly then its commencement will be delayed until the rise of the Assembly, and the notice published under Standing Order 1.11 below calling the Assembly meeting will indicate this. (1) (2) Notes and definitions

[1] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 provide for flexibility in the calling of meetings and notice of the alteration of meetings for the period up to 7 May 2021. 4(1)(b) “[may] Alter the frequency, move or cancel such meetings, without requirement for further notice.”

[21] See s52(6) of the GLA Act , as amended by Local Government Act 2003, s127(1), Sch 7, paras 68, 69(1), (3).

[32] A “working day” excludes a Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day and Boxing Day and any other day that is a bank holiday, public holiday or day of public thanksgiving or mourning. A “clear day” excludes the day of the notice’s publication and the day of the meeting.

Page 238

1.10 CONSIDERING URGENT BUSINESS AND ADDING URGENT ITEMS

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. An urgent item of business (including an item added to the agenda) may only be considered without having been open to public inspection[1] for at least 5 clear working days[21] if (and only if):

(1) in accordance with section 100B(4B) of the Local Government Act 1972 the person presiding[32] at the meeting considers that, by reason of special circumstances, the item should be considered as a matter of urgency; and (if so) makes a statement to that effect at the meeting which shall be recorded in the minutes; and

(2) where a motion to the Assembly is concerned, the meeting itself, by a vote without debate, agrees to proceed in those circumstances and to consider the urgent item following the proposer of the motion having explained the reasons for urgency in accordance with Standing Order 3.12B(1) below[43].

B. For the avoidance of doubt, the Assembly’s consent under paragraph A(2) above is not required for the consideration at an Assembly Budget Meeting of a Formal Budget Amendment or a Budget Related Motion moved in accordance with Standing Order 6.

C. Items of business to which paragraph A above applies, including those submitted on that basis, shall be referred to in Standing Orders as “Urgent Items”, and motions as “Urgent Motions”.

Notes and definitions

[1] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that “open to inspection” shall include for these and all other purposes as being published on the Authority’s website and that “to be published, posted or made available at offices of the Authority” shall include publication on the website of the Authority.

[21] A “working day” excludes a Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day and Boxing Day and any other day that is a bank holiday, public holiday or day of public thanksgiving or mourning. “Clear day” excludes the day of publication of the notice and the day of the meeting.

Page 239 [32] “Person presiding” includes the Chair or other person under Standing Order 2.1B or 2.1C. Under s100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 it is the “chairman of the meeting” who must give consent, who may not necessarily be the permanent Chair of the body in question.

[43] This only applies to the Assembly when it considers an urgent motion, and is not a statutory requirement. Note that under Standing Order 3.12B(1) the mover of an urgent motion has the right to speak for up to 1 minute to explain why it is urgent before the vote referred to in 3.12B(2) is taken.

General note: As a result of s100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Chair of the Assembly or a committee (or other person presiding at the meeting) has a statutory veto over urgent items of business ie where less than 5 clear working days has been given. Therefore paragraph A(1) applies to extraordinary meetings requisitioned under Standing Order 1.8 as well as to those called by a Chair under Standing Order 1.7.

Page 240

1.11 FORMAT AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICES CALLING MEETINGS AND AGENDAS FOR MEETINGS

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees, and subcommittees.

A. Every meeting of the Assembly and its committees shall be called or summoned by the publication and despatch of a formal notice in accordance with this Standing Order 1.11.

B. Every notice formally calling a meeting of the Assembly or a committee (including a requisitioned meeting) shall be published in the name of the Executive Director of Secretariat (or the post holder undertaking those duties) in his/her capacity as “proper officer” under Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)[1]. Notices will be deemed to be published on the day the notice is dated.

C. The Executive Director of Secretariat shall arrange for copies of the notice calling a meeting to be sent to:

(1) every Assembly Member and to the Mayor; and

(2) in the case of committees, every member of that body including co- opted members (if any).

D. The agenda for a meeting shall include[2]:

(3) the time, date and location{3} of the meeting;

(4) the items of business to be considered; and

(5) a copy of each of the reports for the meeting, unless (where distribution to the press and public is concerned) the whole or part of any report is, in the Executive Director of Secretariat’s opinion, likely to disclose exempt or confidential information within the meaning of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972[43];

(6) for Assembly meetings, copies of those notices of motion and amendments (if any) as were deposited with the Executive Director of Secretariat by not later than 12 noon on the sixth clear working day before the date of the meeting, to be set out in the order in which they were received;

Page 241 (7) for MQT meetings, questions to the Mayor submitted under Standing Order 5.6 below and, for members of staff required to attend MQTs, details of the subject areas they are likely to be questioned upon as required by Standing Order 5.7D, as were deposited with the Executive Director of Secretariat by not later than 12 noon on the sixth clear working day before the date of the meeting, to be set out in the agenda in the order in which they were received;

(8) details of the subject areas that the Mayor, members of staff or other persons are likely to be questioned upon as required by Standing Order 2.15B(1) or (2) below, as have been deposited with the Executive Director of Secretariat by not later than 12 noon on the sixth clear working day before the date of the meeting, to be set out in the agenda in the order in which they were received;

(9) any further statements or particulars as are necessary in the Executive Director of Secretariat’s opinion to indicate the nature of the items included on the agenda; and

(10) copies of any other documents supplied to Members in connection with the item that the Executive Director of Secretariat considers appropriate.

E. If a report is not available at the time an agenda is published, then a supplementary agenda will be published with the report as soon as possible thereafter[54]. (If published on less than 5 clear working days’ public notice, the items of business on the supplementary agenda shall be regarded as urgent business and will therefore be subject to the rules set out at Standing Order 1.10.)

F. If withdrawn before the date for despatch of the agenda by its proposer and seconder by notice in writing to the Executive Director of Secretariat, the notice of motion or notice of amendment is not required to be included on the agenda.

G. Copies of the agenda, reports and the other items listed in paragraph D above shall (subject to paragraph D(3) above) be open for public inspection[6] by being:

(1) published on the Authority’s website; and

(2) available for collection by members of the press and public from the reception of the building at which the meeting is to take

Page 242 place[6] (subject to practical conisderatons such as the number of copies which can be reasonably produced).

I. The date of despatch shall refer to the earliest means by which such documents are circulated by or on behalf of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

J. The Mayor and Assembly Members will be sent a hard copy of agendas, reports and other related documents unless they request them to be sent in electronic format, in addition to or instead of the hard copy, or agree with the Executive Director of Secretariat alternative arrangements for accessing the documentation [75].

Notes and definitions

[1] The Executive Director of Secretariat is the designated “proper officer” for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to information) under the Assembly’s Scheme of Delegation.

[2] Except for paragraphs (4) to (6) the other matters listed in paragraph E are required by s100B(7) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

[3] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that ‘any reference to a ‘place’ where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web address or conference call telephone number.’

During the period up until 7 May 2021 when the Coronovarius Regulations 2020 apply, where the meeting is held virtually or is a hybrid meeting, the proper officer will give the requisite notice to the public of the time of the meeting, and the agenda, together with details of where the meeting will be webcast or live streamed.

[43] Any decision of the Executive Director of Secretariat to exclude from publication for the press and public all or part of a report on the basis that it contains exempt information is subject to confirmation or otherwise by the Assembly or relevant committee at the meeting.

[54] Instead of putting the note “Report to follow” on an agenda, a supplementary agenda should be issued in accordance with paragraph F.

[6] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that “open to inspection” shall include for these and all other purposes as being published on the Authority’s

Page 243 website and that “to be published, posted or made available at offices of the Authority” shall include publication on the website of the Authority.

The Regulations further note that documents can be available for collection on the Authority’s website’ as an alternative until 7 May 2021.

[75]The provision of papers by electronic means includes any system where the Mayor and/or Member of the London Assembly has given consent for the agenda to be transmitted in electronic form to a particular electronic address. In accordance with the Coronavirus Regulations 2020, for the period up until 7 May 2021, electronic agendas only will be circulated.

Page 244

1.13 CANCELLING MEETINGS AFTER THE FORMAL NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. Except in the case of scrutiny review meetings, where a formal notice calling a meeting of the Assembly or of a committee has been published under Standing Order 1.11 above, the meeting may not be cancelled or postponed[1][2] .

B. Scrutiny review meetings may be cancelled after the formal notice has been published if, for example, witnesses are unable to attend and the meeting has no substantive business to discuss. In this situation the Executive Director of Secretariat may cancel the meeting following consultation with the Chair, and shall then notify all members of the body concerned of the cancellation and publish a notice to that effect on the Authority’s website as soon as possible[32].

C. Paragraph A above shall not apply to a meeting requisitioned under Standing Order 1.8 above.

D. Where a meeting is postponed under B above, the business will be considered on a date agreed for the holding of the postponed meeting. Where a meeting is cancelled the business will fall, and will only be discussed at a subsequent meeting if it is added to the agenda in the usual way.

Notes and definitions

[1] It is doubtful whether a meeting, once properly convened by service of the notice of meeting, may be lawfully cancelled or postponed. The proper course is to convene the meeting and immediately adjourn it.

[2} The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that:

“4.—(1) In respect of a reference in any enactment to a meeting of a local authority, that authority may, as they may determine— (a) hold such meetings and at such hour and on such days; and (b) alter the frequency, move or cancel such meetings, without requirement for further notice.”

[32] The agendas for scrutiny review meetings are often fluid and, in order to avoid convening meetings at which no invited guests are able to attend nor

Page 245 substantive business is programmed, these meetings may be postponed or cancelled if the Chair agrees. This does not apply where guests have been summonsed to attend a meeting.

Page 246 2.4 QUORUM

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. Except where a Special Quorum applies, the quorum to enable business to be transacted is as follows:

(1) in the case of Assembly meetings, when no Assembly seats are vacant[1], the quorum is half of the number of Assembly Members; and

(2) in the case of other committees, of five Members or more, the quorum is such number as is not less than one half of its total membership (including co-opted members) and in the case of committees of five Members the quorum shall be three.

(3) In the case of committees of four or less the quorum shall be two.

B. If one or more Assembly seats are vacant then the quorum for meetings of the Assembly shall be not less than half of the number of the remaining Assembly Members (ie instead of by reference to the whole number of Assembly seats: 25).

C. A different quorum (higher or lower) from that stated in paragraph A[2] above shall apply when certain business is transacted if either:

(1) these Standing Orders so require; or

(2) the Assembly passes a resolution to that effect;

which shall be called a “Special Quorum” in these Standing Orders.

D. SPECIAL QUORUM: A proposal at an Assembly meeting to prescribe a special quorum under paragraph C above is itself subject to a special quorum. This requires that at least two-thirds of the whole number of Assembly Members (or, in the event of vacancies, then two-thirds of such lower number as remain) is present before such a proposal can be considered (ie 17 members if no seats are vacant).

E. If a quorum (including a special quorum) is not present[3] within 15 minutes of the time when the meeting was due to commence as stated on the agenda, the meeting shall be abandoned and the business will fall.

F. With the exception of the Assembly Budget Meetings[43], if the Chair of a meeting finds that the meeting has become inquorate, the Chair may wait for 5 minutes,

Page 247 following which, if the meeting is still inquorate, the meeting shall end and any business not concluded at that point shall fall. If before the end of the 5 minute period a quorum is restored, the meeting will continue and finish the business on the agenda.

G. If, following an adjournment, the Assembly, committee or subcommittee is to reconvene at a stated time but the meeting remains inquorate at that stated time, paragraph E above does not apply and the meeting will end.

Notes and definitions

[1] Assembly meetings: if no Assembly seats are vacant then the quorum for an Assembly meeting shall be 13 Members. See paragraph B where one or more are vacant.

[2] “Special quorum” means a quorum prescribed under paragraph C different from that under paragraph A. It can be for either the whole meeting or for the consideration of a particular item of business. Only the Assembly can approve a special quorum under paragraph C, either for its own meetings or for committee meetings. To assist the reader where a special quorum applies the words are in capitals.

[3] For the period up until 7 May 2021, the Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that: “A Member in remote attendance is present and attends the meeting, including for the purposes of the meeting’s quorum, if at any time all three of the following conditions are satisfied, those conditions being that the Member in remote attendance is able at that time: (i) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, the other Members in attendance. (ii) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting; and (iii) to be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.”

In the event of any apparent failure of the video conferencing connection, the Chair will immediately determine if the meeting is still quorate.

[34] “Assembly Budget Meeting” in paragraph F refers to the two meetings called to consider the Draft Consolidated and Final Draft Budgets and covered by Standing Order 6.14 (Inquoracy during Budget Meetings).

Page 248 General comment: The difference between paragraphs E and F is that the former applies at the start of the meeting and the latter if a meeting goes inquorate sometime thereafter.

The Assembly has decided that a quorum would not usually be less than three (other than for four Member committees), as otherwise the Chair’s casting vote would potentially determine every item of business (the Chairs of local authority committees and sub-committees have a casting vote in statute LGA 1972, SCG12 para 39(2)). Given that the ability of Chairs of local authority committees and sub-committees to exercise a casting vote is set out in statute, it is not possible for Standing Orders to fetter that ability. However, the Assembly has agreed informally that, in the event that only two Members are able to attend a meeting of a four Member committee, whilst the meeting may go ahead, the Chair will not use his casting vote to determine any business before the committee. If a meeting becomes inquorate the business falls as a result of Paragraph F. Any business not transacted by that point can only be considered if a new agenda is issued calling a new meeting (which could be an extraordinary meeting).

Page 249

2.6 VOTING

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees: but paragraph C below is suspended in accordance with SO 6.6 in relation to votes on Formal Budget Amendments to the Final Draft Budget at the Final Budget Meeting; paragraph D below is suspended in relation to Formal Budget Amendments at both Assembly Budget Meetings; and the whole of Standing Order 2.6 is added to in accordance with SO 6.6E.

A. Every Member of the Assembly, or of a committee, may cast one vote if a vote is called[1].

B. If equal numbers of votes are cast then the Chair may additionally give a second or casting vote (whether or not he or she voted in the first instance)[2].

C. The mode of voting will be by show of hands other than where the provisions of Standing Order 2.7A are invoked[2][3].

D. If a motion or recommendation (including as amended), or amendment, comprises two or more elements then it will be debated as a whole, but the Chair may allow Members to vote on each element separately if any Member so requests and the Chair considers that to do so will assist the conduct of business[43].

E. Any Member may require a delay in proceedings of two minutes before a vote is taken to allow Members temporarily out of the meeting to take part in the vote.

F. Paragraphs A, B and E above may not be suspended under Standing Order 1.1I so as to deny any Member their vote or the Chair his/her casting or second vote[54].

Notes and definitions

[1] The Chair’s second or casting vote is a statutory requirement (s53(2) of the GLA Act 1999) and may not be suspended.

[2] Assembly Budget Meetings: paragraph C is suspended where the vote is upon a Formal Budget Amendment to the Final Draft Budget at the Final Budget Meeting: see SO 6.6. Instead this is to be by named vote, taken in alphabetical

Page 250 order, where each Assembly Member states whether he/she wishes to vote for, against or to abstain – see SO 6.6E.

[3] For virtual or hybrid meetings, unless a recorded vote is required or requested, Members will be asked to indicate their views by turning on their mic and speaking. If there is not a general consensus, or if it is not clear whether there is a general consensus/whether there are any objections, the Chair will take a recorded vote.

[43] Assembly Budget Meetings: paragraph D is suspended by SO 6.6 in respect of any vote taken on a Formal Budget Amendment at either of the two Assembly Budget Meetings, so as to prevent separate votes being taken on the separate elements making up a Formal Budget Amendment that are required to be calculated under ss85(4) to (8) of the GLA Act 1999 in respect of the GLA and Functional Bodies – see SO 6.6. (Where a Budget Related Motion is moved as part of the same report proposing a Formal Budget Amendment, then it is to be voted upon separately (see SO 6.12G) and where a Budget Related Motion comprises separate elements these can be voted upon individually.)

[54] This reflects the fact that s53(1) of the GLA Act 1999 implies that every Member has one vote and s53(2) gives the Chair or person presiding a casting or second vote, and so neither can be suspended.

Page 251

2.7 RECORDING OF VOTES AND ABSTENTIONS

Application: A Applies to the Assembly. B applies to the Assembly, its committees, subcommittees.

A. At meetings of the Assembly (only), if any single Assembly Member so requests before a vote is taken, a recorded vote shall be taken where the voting on any question shall be recorded in the minutes so as to show how each Assembly Member present gave his/her vote.[1 The Chair shall ask each member present in turn, in alphabetical order of name (but with the Deputy Chair and the Chair being called last), to declare how they wish to cast their vote (for or against) or whether they wish to abstain from voting.

B. At Assembly, committee and subcommittee meetings any Member may require after the vote is taken that the minutes record that the members of his/her own Political Group, or himself/herself individually, voted against or abstained from voting.

Notes and definitions

[1] At a virtual or hybrid meeting, where there is not unanimity or if it is not clear whether there is unanimity, the Chair will call a recorded vote. Each Member of the committee/Assembly Members present will be asked in turn, in alphabetical order of name (but with the Deputy Chair and the Chair being called last), to declare how they wish to cast their vote (for or against) or whether they wish to abstain from voting.

Page 252 2.8 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS

Application: applies to the Assembly, its committees and subcommittees.

A. All meetings shall be open to the press and public unless, and to the extent that, they are lawfully excluded by a resolution of the Assembly or of a committee, under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (exempt information items[1]) or by section 100A(2) of that Act (confidential information items[2]).

B. Where such a resolution is passed the Chair may direct that:

(1) the room in which the meeting is being held is to be cleared of the press and public (including the Chamber and/or any areas of the building from which proceedings can be seen or heard); or

(2) the meeting itself will move to another room to continue in private, if that would be more practicable.

C. The right of the press and public to be present during the open part of a meeting under paragraph A is subject to the Chair’s powers to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or misbehaviour at meetings, and to any power of exclusion conferred by these Standing Orders or under the general law[3].

D. In accordance with the relevant statutory framework[43], members of the press and public may, during parts of meetings that are open to the public:

(1) Film, photograph or make sound recordings of proceedings at a meeting of the London Assembly, its committees and sub-committees;

(2) Use other means for enabling persons not present at such a meeting to see or hear proceedings at the meeting, as it takes place or later;

(3) In writing only report or provide commentary on the proceedings at such a meeting, so that the report or commentary is available, as the meeting takes place or later, to persons not present at the meeting;

(4) By exception and subject to the prior approval of the Chair of the meeting, make an oral report or commentary on the proceedings at a meeting.

E. No person other than a member of the body in question shall have any right to participate in the meeting unless invited to do so by the Chair.

Page 253

Notes and definitions

[1] “Exempt information” refers to the categories of information concerning which the Assembly/committee has the discretion to take in private session, as set out in section 100I and Parts I - III of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

[2] “Confidential information” (as defined by s100A(3) of the 1972 Act) means:

- information furnished to the Authority by a government department upon terms (however expressed) which forbid the disclosure of the information to the public; and

- information the disclosure of which is prohibited by or under any enactment or by order of a court.

[3] Under the Coronavirus Regulations 2020, “open to the public” includes access to the meeting being through remote means including (but not limited to) video conferencing, live webcast, and live interactive streaming and where a meeting is accessible to the public through such remote means the meeting is open to the public whether or not members of the public are able to attend the meeting in person.

[43] The statutory framework relating to filming, recording and reporting of local authority meetings is included in the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014.

General comment: In addition to the above, ss58(3) and (4) of the GLA Act 1999 add four further categories of confidential information relating to Transport for London and the London Development Agency (set out in subparagraph (4)) as to when the Assembly/committee must go into private session. Also, s65 of the GLA Act applies access to information provisions to documents obtained using the powers under s61(1) to require attendance at Assembly meetings and the production of documents.

Page 254 3.21 PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS TO THE ASSEMBLY

Application: applies to the Assembly only.

A. An Assembly Member presenting a petition accepted under Standing Order 3.20 shall do so by reading out the request or “prayer” of the petition (but not the names of the signatories). Otherwise, on that occasion he or she shall not speak on the petition and the petition will not be debated.

B. If the Assembly Member due to present the petition is not in attendance, an alternative Assembly Member may present it subject to the permission of the Chair.

C. The Assembly will decide, by a vote without debate, whether or not to forward the petition to the Mayor, a Functional Body, a committee or some other appropriate organisation with a request for a response to the points made in the prayer to the petition.

D. Any response received will be reported to the Assembly for information and forwarded to the petition’s organiser.

E. The petition, including the text of the prayer but not its signatories, will be reported in the minutes of the meeting to which it was presented. The subsequent response (if any) received will be published in the minutes of reported to the next appropriate Assembly meeting.

Page 255 5.2 PURPOSE OF MQT MEETINGS

Application: applies to MQT meetings only.

A. At Mayor’s Question Time[1] the Assembly:

(1) will consider the written periodic report (“the MQT Report”) submitted by the Mayor under s45(1) of the GLA Act 1999;

(2) may put oral or written questions to the Mayor about his/her MQT Report and/or any other matter in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by the Mayor in accordance with s45(3) of the Act and Standing Order 5.5 below;

(3) may put questions to any GLA employee who has been required to attend Mayor’s Question Time to answer questions from Assembly Members in accordance with sections 52(3)(b)(ii), 70(4) and (5) of the GLA Act 1999 and Standing Order 5.7 below.

B. Following consultation with relevant Executive Directors, the Chair may decide what other business, if any, is to be transacted at the meeting and the order in which those other items will appear on the published agenda subject (in either case) to:

(1) any rule of law requiring business to be considered; or

(2) the Head of Paid Service requiring that the published agenda for the meeting is to include a particular item of business, or particular content in a report, following consultation with the Chair, Monitoring Officer and Section 127 Officer.

C. If in the opinion of the Chair, after consultation with the Executive Director of Secretariat, any question, motion, recommendation in a report or amendment is unlawful or improper or fails to comply with Standing Orders then the Chair may determine that it is out of order and shall not be considered by the meeting and, if necessary, excluded from the printed agenda. The Chair shall contact the Member(s) who submitted the motion, report or amendment as soon as practicable giving reasons for his/her decision.

Page 256 Notes and definitions

[1] In this Standing Order 5 “MQT” refers to an Assembly meeting (a Mayor’s Question Time) held in accordance with s52(3) of the GLA Act 1999.

The Assembly must hold 10 MQTs (no more, no less) in every calendar year. Under s45(3) the Mayor must attend every MQT Meeting and must answer questions put to him at the meeting about matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by him. This includes anything he/she has/could have done under the Authority’s principal purposes under s30 of the GLA Act 1999 (the power to do anything that promotes wealth creation, social and environmental improvement) and his/her personal duties under eg the GLA Code of Conduct (eg the duty not to bring the Authority or his office into disrepute). The Mayor’s duty to attend, and the content of questions, should be balanced against his right to have his personal and family life respected. Deliberate and unreasonable failure to attend, or to stay or answer questions at MQT Meetings, may trigger a breach of the Code of Conduct, notwithstanding the limit of 6 meetings under s13 having not been reached.

The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 temporarily provide greater flexibility in relation to the number and frequency of MQT meetings required. They set out that MQTs shall take place “on up to ten occasions in each calendar year as the Assembly may determine following consultation with the Mayor.” and additionally relax the requirement for 14 days notice of and 21 days between MQT meetings.

Page 257

6.5 PROCEDURE FOR DEPOSITING BUDGET DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS AND BUDGET RELATED MOTIONS

Application: applies in relation to both Assembly Budget Meetings.

A. The Mayor shall deposit with the Executive Director of Secretariat a copy of the Draft Consolidated Budget or the Final Draft Budget and accompanying reports (if any), and any statements that are due to be laid before the Assembly in accordance with Standing Orders 6.17A (2) or (4) for the purposes of its being despatched to Assembly Members for their consideration at a public meeting of the Assembly[1] (the Budget Meetings).

B. In order to comply with section 100B(3) of the Local Government Act 1972[2] the budget and any accompanying report must be available for inspection by the public[3] for at least 5 clear working days before the date of the Budget Meeting.

C. The Mayor may amend any item in the deposited budget and/or accompanying report up and until the point when the Chair opens the Budget Meeting. Any such amendments shall be made following consultation with the Chair as to the presentation of the amended documents to the Assembly and by depositing the relevant revised documentation with the Executive Director of Secretariat, who shall arrange for it to be made available to Assembly Members, the press and public as soon as practicable in advance of the Budget Meeting[43].

A. In the event of the Mayor seeking to present amendments directly after the meeting opens, the Chair should allow these to be presented to the meeting, provided that, in the opinion of the Chair the amendments are presented and explained in writing and in sufficient detail, which shall include clear information as to the implications of the amendments for the remainder of the budget proposals, to allow the Assembly properly to consider them.[54]

Notes and definitions

[1] The public meetings are required by paragraphs 3(3) and 6(4) of Schedule 6.

[2] Sections 100A to 100K of the Local Government Act 1972 are applied to the Assembly by s58 of the GLA Act 1999. See the notes to Standing Order 1.10

Page 258 (Considering urgent items and adding urgent business) for the definition of working and clear days.

[3] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 note that “open to inspection” shall include for these and all other purposes as being published on the website of the authority;

[43] This provision does allow the Mayor to amend his/her previously published (for the purposes of the Assembly Budget Meetings) draft and final draft Budget documents at any point up until the point when the Chair opens the relevant Budget Meeting. In this event the Chair may have to adjourn the meeting in order to allow the Political Groups to consider their response and any consequential revisions to prepared Budget Related Amendments and Budget Related Motions.

[54] In this event the Chair may have to adjourn the meeting in order to allow the Political Groups to consider their response and any consequential revisions to prepared Budget Related Amendments and Budget Related Motions.

Page 259

6.14 INQUORACY DURING THE BUDGET MEETING

Application: applies to both Assembly Budget Meetings.

A. If at any point after it has commenced the Budget Meeting becomes inquorate[1], then the meeting shall automatically stand adjourned for a period of up to 15 minutes from the point the inquoracy is drawn to the Chair’s attention. The Chair shall at that point declare that the meeting is inquorate and is adjourned for that 15 minute period.

B. If within that 15 minute period a quorum is present, then the Budget Meeting shall resume; if a quorum is not present after that 15 minutes has expired, then the Budget Meeting shall not end but shall then stand adjourned. Unless the contrary has been resolved prior to that point, the Assembly will not be taken to have concluded its consideration of the budget, which will continue when the meeting reconvenes. The Chair shall determine the date and time when the meeting is to resume, following consultation with the Mayor and the Leaders of the Political Groups, which shall be communicated to Assembly Members and the Mayor by the Executive Director of Secretariat.

C. If, following an adjournment, the Assembly is to reconvene at a stated time but the meeting remains inquorate at that stated time, paragraph B above does not apply and the meeting will end.

Notes and definitions

[1] Under the Coronavirus Regulations 2020, a member in remote attendance is present and attends the meeting, including for the purposes of the meeting’s quorum, if at any time all three of the following conditions are satisfied, those conditions being that the Member in remote attendance is able at that time:

(i) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, the other Members in attendance. (ii) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting; and (iii) to be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.

Page 260

7.1 THE STATE OF LONDON DEBATE

Application: applies to the State of London Debate only.

A. Once in every financial year the Mayor must hold a meeting that is open to the public called the “State of London Debate” (“the Debate”)[1][1a].

B. The Mayor shall approve the form of the Debate and its procedures[2]. These procedures must give members of the public an opportunity to speak. The Mayor must consult the Assembly before approving the form of the Debate and its procedures.

C. Members of the public who attend or speak at the Debate do so subject to, and in accordance with, those procedures[3].

D. The Mayor shall decide the date of the Debate providing that it is held:

(1) in the months of April, May or June; and

(2) that date is at least 7 days after the date the Mayor’s Annual Report (relating to the financial year last ended) is published under section 46 of the GLA Act.

E. The Mayor must determine the place at which the meeting is to be held and give at least one month’s notice of the date and place of the meeting to members of the public[4].

F. The Mayor may appoint any person to preside at the Debate, whether or not that person has a connection with the GLA, following consultation with the Assembly[5].

Page 261 Notes and definitions

[1] The State of London Debate is not a meeting of the Assembly and the rules under the GLA Act and other relevant legislation concerning Assembly meetings, access to information etc do not apply to the Debate. It is a meeting required under s47 of the GLA Act 1999.

[1a] Under the Coronavirus Regulations 2020, s47 of the GLA Act 1999 (the annual State of London debate) is disapplied.

[2] The Mayor has the power to approve procedures for the Debate under s47(2), which can include provisions to control disorderly conduct etc.

[3] This is provided for in s47(5).

[4] This is required by s47(7).

[5] As required by ss47(2) to (4). The Assembly must be consulted about the identity of the person to be appointed to chair the debate and the form it is to take.

Page 262

7.2 PEOPLE’S QUESTION TIMES

Application: applies to the two People’s Question Time meetings only.

A. Twice in every financial year, the Mayor and the Assembly must hold and attend a meeting that will be open to all members of the public, which may be called “People’s Question Time” (“PQT”)[1][1a].

B. The Mayor shall approve the form of each statutory PQT meeting and its procedures, following consultation with the Assembly[2].

C. Members of the public who attend or speak at PQT do so subject to, and in accordance with, those procedures.

D. The Mayor decides the date of PQT meetings, following consultation with the Assembly, the date of which must not be less than one month before or one month after the date of the State of London Debate.

E. The Mayor must determine the place[3] at which the PQT meeting is to be held, and give at least one month’s notice of the date and place of the meetings to members of the public.

F. The Mayor may appoint any person to preside at the PQT meeting, whether or not that person has a connection with the Greater London Authority, following consultation with the Assembly[43].

Notes and definitions

[1] Section 48 of the GLA Act 1999 sets out the requirements for the People’s Question Times (PQTs). The two PQT meetings are not meetings of the Assembly, and the rules under the GLA Act and other relevant legislation concerning Assembly meetings, access to information etc do not apply to them.

[1a] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that “where regulations made under Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(b) are in force in respect of a serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of coronavirus, a People’s Question Time may be cancelled where the head of the Authority’s paid service considers that it is not reasonably practicable to hold it.“

[2] The Mayor has the power to approve procedures for PQT meetings, which can include provisions to control disorderly conduct etc – see s48(3).

Page 263

[3] The Coronavirus Regulations 2020 state that the ‘place’ at which the meeting is held may be at an Authority building or may be an electronic or a digital or virtual location, a web address or a conference call telephone number; or could be a number of these combined. The meeting may also be held in a meeting room or Chamber with a proportion of the membership and any participating public additionally attending remotely.

[43] The Assembly must be consulted about the identity of the person to be appointed to chair each particular meeting and the form it is to take – see ss48(2) to (5) of the GLA Act 1999.

Page 264

12.2 THE REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND INTERESTS

Application: applies to the Mayor, every Member of the Assembly, and to other co-opted members of the Authority.

A. The Monitoring Officer must establish and maintain a register of interests of members and co-opted members of the Authority.

B. The Mayor, each Assembly Member, and every other co-opted member of an Assembly committee or subcommittee must, within 28 days of the Code being approved and adopted by the Authority under Standing Order 12.1, or, where it is later, within 28 days of their election or (in the case of a co- opted member) their appointment, notify the Authority’s Monitoring Officer in writing (for registration in the Authority’s register of interests) of any interests they are required to register under the Authority’s Code.

C. The Mayor, each Assembly Member, and every other co-opted member of an Assembly committee or subcommittee must, within 28 days of becoming aware of any new or change to any interest they are required to register under the Authority’s Code, notify the Authority’s Monitoring Officer in writing (for registration in the Authority’s register of interests) of that new interest or change.

D. The Mayor, each Assembly Member, and every other co-opted member of an Assembly committee or subcommittee shall comply with any guidance, procedures or requirements relating to the registration and disclosure of interests that are approved and issued by the Authority’s Monitoring Officer, after consulting with the Mayor and the Assembly

E. Where a Member has an interest that, in accordance with the Authority’s Code and any guidance, procedures or requirements issued by the Monitoring Officer under D above, precludes that Member from:

(i) participating, or participating further, in any business before a meeting (within the definition of meeting contained in the Authority’s Code), or (ii) participating in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting

that Member must withdraw from the meeting while any discussion or vote takes place.[1]

Page 265

Notes and Definitions

[1] Any Member participating in a virtual meeting who declares a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other declarable interest, in any item of business that would normally require them to leave the room, must also leave the remote meeting. Their departure will be confirmed by the clerk, who will invite the relevant Member to re-join the meeting at the appropriate time.

Page 266 Agenda Item 6

Subject: Relocation from City Hall

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 October 2020

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 The Committee will review the ongoing consultation and plans to move the Greater London Authority (GLA) from City Hall.

1.2 The Committee will hear from the Chief Officer of the Greater London Authority, Mary Harpley, as well as the following officers: Simon Grinter, Head of Facilities Management; and David Gallie, Executive Director of Resources.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the Committee note the report as background to putting questions to invited guests on the proposed relocation of City Hall, and notes the subsequent discussion.

2.2 That the Committee delegates authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree any output from the discussion at the meeting.

3. Background

3.1 The Mayor of London, , announced on 24 June 2020, the start of a consultation to relocate City Hall from its current location to The Crystal in the Royal Docks.1 The Mayor’s position is that leaving City Hall would allow for £55m in savings over five years at a time of significant financial pressure for the GLA Group as London emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.2 On 6 July 2020, the Chief Officer of the GLA clarified that the £55m in savings would break down to £63m in rent, rates and service charges over five years. The cost of moving the GLA Group is estimated at £8m, which when deducted from the £63m saved, generates a figure of £55m.

3.3 The Committee will consider the potential impacts that may be experienced as a result of the relocation, including:

1 GLA: Mayor to consult on relocating City Hall to protect services 24 June 2020

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 267

Staff Retention 3.4 The shift from City Hall near the iconic London Bridge to the Royal Docks has raised concerns regarding accessibility. Thus, despite the stated likelihood that GLA employees will continue to work from home for approximately 2-3 days per week, there may be significant commuting burdens placed upon many employees.

Accessibility 3.5 Closely linked to the above, one of the key functions of City Hall has been to allow the public to attend events such as Mayor’s Question Time and other public meetings. There are significant concerns that the move to the Royal Docks may lead to reduced levels of public engagement.2 The same concerns regarding levels of public engagement also pertain to engagement with the media.

Security 3.6 Questions have also been raised regarding security arrangements at the Crystal, as it is currently unclear whether the building has ‘shelter spots’ in the event of any violent incidents. Furthermore, it is not clear if the police could respond to any such incident with the same speed as is possible at the current City Hall location.

4. Issues for Consideration

4.1 The Committee has invited Mary Harpley, the Greater London Authority Chief Officer. Other GLA officers will be in attendance at this meeting: Simon Grinter, Head of Facilities Management and David Gallie, Executive Director of Resources.

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There is no financial implication to the GLA arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report: None.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Gino Brand, Senior Policy Advisor Telephone: 07511 213765 E-mail: [email protected]

2 Ibid Page 268 Agenda Item 7

Subject: GLA Oversight Committee Work Programme

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 October 2020

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out the work programme for the GLA Oversight for the rest of the 2020/21 Assembly year.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee notes its work programme for the remainder of 2020.

3. Background

3.1 The Committee receives a report monitoring the progress of its work programme at each meeting.

4. Issues for Consideration

Impact of COVID-19 on London 4.1 At its meeting on 7 May 2020, the Committee undertook an investigation into the impacts of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of the response by the Mayor. It looked at the actions taken by, and options open to, the Mayor in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in London. In addition, it focussed on the effectiveness of resilience planning in supporting Londoners and adapting to new challenges of COVID-19. The Committee continued its investigation at its meeting on 20 May when it met with Paul Scully MP, Minister for London and on 9 September when it met with Dr Fiona Twycross, John Barradell and Eleanor Kelly.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 269

Work Programme for the Remainder of the Assembly Year 4.2 The table below sets out the remainder of allocated dates for the GLA Oversight Committee that are currently scheduled for the 2020/21 Assembly year. The work programme for September-December 2020 was agreed under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 20 July 2020. The GLA Oversight Committee anticipates continuing its investigation into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of the response.

Date Topic 3 November 2020 TBC

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report: None.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None.

Contact Officer: Gino Brand, Senior Policy Adviser Telephone: 07511 213765 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 270