Running
LondonRunning
London
Improving London's government, making the case for more powers
Before being elected to the GLA, Mike served in various roles at national,
regional and local government. This convinced him of the important role for a
strategic regional tier - he has repeatedly stressed that the Greater London Authority is
a relatively new
layer of government which is still on probation. If we are to make the case for
more powers to be devolved from central government, the Mayor and Assembly must show they can operate existing powers effectively.
Mike has repeatedly argued for more devolution and used Mayor's Question Time to hold the Mayor to account on his performance across a diverse range of issues, including:
For an up-to-date account of Mike's questioning of the Mayor, visit the official GLA website - click here.
Posted below are questions from before the official database was compiled.
Following the meeting of the GLA Planning Department with various interested parties representing the Streatham Hub project on 12 July 2004, will you please give us an update on the current status of this project?
[Partial]
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I welcome the change in tone both from the Mayor and indeed Val Shawcross because up until now they have been dragging their feet on this. It is most welcome. I understand there was nothing new in the financial package that was under discussion this week; it was always going to be in place. It is helpful that the details are now clearer, and anyway it would all have been in the Section 106 agreement so I think the Mayor's fears were over-stated.
Can I ask you particularly about TfL's role in this? One issue of concern is the fact that the swimming pool will be shut for a little over a year, the reason for that is because TfL is insisting on having bus turning facilities which will have to be on the current swimming pool site. What will you do and indeed what have you done if you are now in favour of moving this forward to try to remove that TfL impediment which is causing the temporary closure of the swimming pool?
The Mayor: It is all very well, but there would be many complaints if we had to cut bus travel in the area. This is not an area served by the Underground and therefore the buses are absolutely crucial to people. I am quite happy to ask TfL whether anything can be done to help. We have not been negative about this at all. We want to see an ice-rink and a swimming pool, but the financial package was not there. I am not a financier, but our professional advisers told us that the package did not stack up and did not contain the funding to guarantee the rink and pool would be built. That was the only reason. We do not have this problem with most other developments, they sail through and we get the package tied up good and quick.
We have made it absolutely clear from the beginning that as soon as the council and the developer come up with a clear financial package that stacks up, we can reverse the direction to refuse.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): My understanding is that the package always was there and the evidence was given to your officers this week, so take that at face value. I also accept that you will do what you can to move the problem with TfL. Obviously no-one is calling for the South London bus network to come to a halt on account of this, but some flexibility from TfL to allow the swimming pool to remain open while the new one is built would clearly help the Streatham residents.
The Mayor: I always try to be your flexible friend.
Mike Tuffrey
Are you concerned your delay in granting planning permission for new recreational facilities in Streatham risks permanent closure of the ice-rink, as well as depriving Londoners of the benefits of an improved leisure complex?
The Mayor: Basically, my answer is the same as the one I gave earlier. (Question 992 in Part A).
Mike Tuffrey (AM): One of the sad facts of the delay is that 300 new housing units, of which 102 (40%) are affordable, have therefore also been delayed. Clearly, we would like that figure to be higher than 40%. The key aspect there is the element of public subsidy that goes in. Can you tell us your analysis of John Prescott's (Deputy Prime Minister) 4% increase in funding that he announced yesterday? He says this will mean an extra 10,000 affordable homes nationally by 2008. What will be the effect on London, and will it flow through into schemes such as this one?
The Mayor: I do not have the housing figures to hand. It is a dramatic improvement and means far more subsidy is available. I was discussing this yesterday with the relevant Minister, Keith Hill (Minister for Housing and Planning). I raised with him the fact that with some of that subsidy we would perhaps like to revisit schemes we have already looked at, or even had permission for, because very often the lack of subsidy led a council to have to agree a very high proportion of one or two-bed units and clearly Londoners need larger accommodation as well. He was quite interested in that idea and the Government Office for London are now looking at it. It could very well be that it is now possible to increase the level of subsidy for this scheme, and we will be happy to add that to the list we are looking at.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Certainly, councils like Lambeth and this one in Southwark want to achieve those targets. What will the effect of that be on the totals? Currently, completions in affordable units are running at about 6-7% per year in London and the London Plan says up to 15,000 per year, even though estimates of need are well in excess of 20,000. How will the increased subsidy help and what is your assessment of whether we are going to reach 15,000, which in itself is not enough?
The Mayor: I am hopeful that the extra subsidy will allow me to achieve the commitment I gave to get affordable housing up to 15,000 per year. We anticipate being slightly under 10,000 this year. There was a long-running debate throughout the campaign between Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat Mayoral candidate) and me about what the real figures are. The problem is that it is only really since the GLA was established that we have started to get anything like the figures we can be confident about. We are anticipating just under 10,000 this year. I am hopeful these figures can take us up to 15,000.
Once again, we have to make the case for the money we want coming into London. Clearly, the Government is earmarking the bulk of that for the Thames Gateway, but the extra money coming in may allow the Housing Corporation to re-jig its funding between the different parts of London.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): The increased subsidy is clearly welcome. The point is that Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer) is taking £1 billion per year out of the London property market, and this is a welcome, modest 4% increase and I would like to see it flow into schemes like this. I am sure you would agree.
Mike Tuffrey
What benefits do you expect the GLA to receive now from its non-membership of the Association of Nuclear Free Local Authorities during 2003-04, to justify retrospectively paying the fee?
The Association of Nuclear Free Authorities aims to identify the impact of national nuclear policy on local communities, increase local accountability over national nuclear policy, and work to minimise nuclear hazards and increase public safety. In London, the impact is considered to relate particularly to risks arising from the transportation of nuclear waste; specifically, the transfer through the capital of spent nuclear waste. The Association provides a range of services to its members (which include several London Boroughs) including legal and policy advice, a member's enquiry service, as well as briefings and conference events.
In addition to the benefits of membership of NFLA shown above, membership will also provide the GLA with rapid access to the expertise and experience of authorities with similar concerns, ranging from the transport of spent fuel to radioactive contamination of materials for recycling. The need for such information is, by its very nature, likely to be urgent and unplanned. Membership of NFLA is therefore considered a cost-effective way of accessing information and expertise as and when the need arises. As such it is considered that this membership represents good value for money.
Mike Tuffrey
Why has it taken four years to publish your Culture Strategy? Isn't this a case of too little too late?
There are three factors which have determined the timescale:
1. The CSG produced a first draft for me but further work was required to turn it into a final strategy 2. Given the breadth of culture I wanted to take time to ensure that the Culture Strategy was a robust document with a strong evidence base; and 3. It was vital that the cultural agencies had ownership of the document and were involved in its development.
As a consequence the draft Culture Strategy was very positively received. I do not consider that it is a case of too little too late.
Many of the proposals within the Culture Strategy are already underway including my Commission on African Heritage, GAIN - developing the diversity of the boards of arts organisations; the Fourth Plinth commissions, and support to a range of cultural events.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): It is an infallible rule that whenever there is a weak point in your argument you launch onto the attack. I want to respond to your ridiculous attack on the [Assembly's] budget scrutiny process. One of your least endearing characteristics, if I may say so, is that when there is a problem, it is always somebody else's fault.
The Mayor: I have noticed this myself.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Indeed. So when there is a problem with TfL's finances, it is not your fault as Chair of TfL, but instead it is first the Government's fault and, secondly, it is the fault of the Budget Scrutiny Committee. Is it not the case that this is all to do with PPP contracts? Indeed, the paper before us says quite explicitly that underspends have resulted outside the terms of the PPP. Why do you persist in blaming other people when you are in charge of TfL and you should take responsibility for the muddle in the finances?
The Mayor: If you look at the TfL underspend - I do not have the papers in front of me, but my recollection is £283 million comes from underperformance by the Infracos and the Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). We inherited those on 15 July. Take that out and you are talking in terms of a slippage of about £60 million in other areas and an increase in income from bus fares, which we are delighted to have. We did not expect the scale of increase; we did not expect that after we increased the fares in January ridership would continue to increase. If you take out the fares and take out the Underground problems - because I do not think anyone seriously assumed we could turn it around in the six months we have been responsible for it - out of a budget of £2.5 billion you are talking about a £60 million slippage. Much of that has resulted from Jay Walder (Director of Finance and Performance, TfL) and his team bearing down relentlessly year by year on central administration costs.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): We are all trying to make the argument to central Government that London should have a fair share of its resources. They have cut transport grant, not by a few million that has trickled back into the budget today, but by tens of millions. This year they have cut it by over £100 million. How can London under your stewardship - hopefully only until June - make a serious case to central Government if we cannot even spend the monies that we do have available to us?
The Mayor: It is not that we cannot spend it, but the fact that the Infracos have not yet fulfilled their contractual undertaking. Two of the PFIs are seriously underperforming. These are schemes we inherited; schemes we advised against the Government entering into. It is surprising that the Infracos are taking so long to gear themselves up for action when the profits roll in the moment they do the work.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): As I have said, it is not just in the PPP and the Infraco side of things. Take London buses for example. Will you apologise to Londoners for putting their fares up this year to pay for the westward extension of the Congestion Charging scheme, despite your promise not to put fares up?
The Mayor: No. We put fares up because we had a four-year freeze which I was committed to and I thought it was more honest to put in place the fares' regime I would intend through a second term before an election, rather than surprise people with it afterwards. I think the fares' package has been very well received. Now that under-11s travel free on the bus this is a huge benefit to poorer Londoners and I think the position is that this is a sustainable transport package.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): If it is over-budget why is that not being put into reserves to pay for the looming financial crisis on the buses? Why is it being used to pay for the westward extension of Congestion Charging?
The Mayor: There is no looming financial crisis on the buses. We have to stop conflating the revenue and capital programmes. The day-to-day running of the Underground and the buses is in balance and will continue to be easily in balance over the years to come. We are asking for another £1 billion per year to expand provision, expand the bus service, and expand rail operations. We will not get all of that, but we will get some of it.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): You have not answered my question three times now. Why did you put the bus fares up to pay for the westward extension of the Congestion Charging scheme? It quite clearly says this on page 10 of the papers that you do not have in front of you.
The Mayor: The extra money that is coming in from the buses will be used to deliver the westward extension of the Congestion Charging scheme. We did not do the increase in fares for that specific purpose. The increase was because the four-year fare freeze had come to an end and I thought Londoners should know what my fares' policies were before the election rather than, as many sleazy politicians would have done, and wait they were elected and then banged it in.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): So that we can properly scrutinise your successor's handling of TfL, could you give a commitment, which I am sure your successor will stick to, to make publicly available the TfL Finance Committee papers?
The Mayor: I thought you had them.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): They have not been, but as a result of our scrutiny they now are - the scrutiny that you just dismissed.
The Mayor: When I read your report I thought your complaint was that you did not understand them as they were unnecessarily complex. I think that is a good point, but I will certainly get a simplified version for you.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Please make sure the Minutes record that.
Sally Hamwee (Chair): The position with the TfL Finance Committee papers is that we are sent them because we are privileged to receive them. They are not in the public domain. We specifically asked if the papers annexed to this report could be put into the public domain.
The Mayor: Let me check with the lawyers, as with all things financial, but I can see no reason why not.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Sticking with consultation and the benefits of listening, incidentally I should welcome the start this week of a trial of a new bus service, the 603, from Muswell Hill to Swiss Cottage, which has only taken six years' worth of campaigning from local people and Liberal Democrats to get that one to a trial stage. Is it not high time - Lynne (Featherstone) to the fore on that one - that we had a proper system so that communities and individuals could actually propose new bus routes or alterations to existing services, with TfL and London Buses inviting those in, so that a well-publicised scheme… so that they could submit proposals and have those considered in the context of the transport strategy and the Plan and have a proper response? I say that because at present it seems to me it is reactive, in the sense that there are campaigns; they are ad hoc and, generally, the response comes back: 'No, that it is not part of our plan'. Is it not time we had a scheme whereby people could actually propose things and have a proper response, but fitted with the budgeting timetables and so forth?
The Mayor: That seems like a very good idea. The initial rush, when we were establishing everything, was to deal with much more urgent priorities and just get contracts let. Now I think we have got a much better grip on the structure, it might be possible that we could build into the bus contracting process consultation with stakeholder groups on the route before a contract is let at an earlier stage. It might be that there are some substantial staffing implications there, so I cannot actually say that will happen, but it is certainly something we will take away and look at.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Contracting is an obvious point to do it, but more widely and in terms of forward planning, so that there is genuinely a change of culture, because I think one of the criticisms from our side is, despite all the fine talk here about changing the culture in TfL, it has not actually flowed through as we have seen from the exchange just five minutes ago, in terms of a change of mentality, so that they genuinely are not adopting a 'we know best', they are genuinely listening and genuinely giving an honest answer, rather than simply saying 'no, that is not part of our plan; it cannot be done'. So let us work on it, and certainly from our side we will be proposing these things in the months to come.
The Mayor: A particular flurry of them in late May, no doubt.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Can I pursue the point about how the Coulsdon Inner Relief Road, and indeed the Purley Cross scheme, is actually funded? In your re-marriage of convenience with the Labour Party, you will no doubt be aware of the Parliamentary Labour Party Transport Committee and Labour Finance and Industry Group Paper…
The Mayor: Oddly enough, it has not passed my desk. I am sure it is on its way.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): …Towards a New Labour Transport Strategy, where it talks about funding of schemes like this and it says: 'In rich regions and areas we should expect more of the money for investment in transport infrastructure, such as road and rail schemes, to be raised locally'. So are you now signing up to the Labour Party line to put up taxes, if you were to win a second term, to pay for schemes like this? Or do you disagree with the Labour policy? In which case, is it not true that your re-admission to the Labour Party is a re-marriage of convenience and a cynical exercise? They do not agree with you; you do not agree with them. Which is it? Are you going to put up taxes to pay for this, or is it a re-marriage of convenience?
The Mayor: Can I escape this killer question? It does strike me sometimes that you do have a very negative approach to life. Let us all rejoice in the relief road coming to Coulsdon. Let us look forward optimistically to a positive working environment to deal with the problems a bit further down the road at Purley, and let us hope, if you come back after the election, that you have a more positive frame of mind.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I want to know how we are going to pay for…
The Mayor: My persuasive powers with the Labour Government will, I am sure, unleash a cornucopia of joyous projects for London.
Mike Tuffrey
Why is there an underspend of £140 million in London Underground's budget? Why has not this money been spent on vital improvements to the London Underground service?
The Mayor: The difference between the 2003/4 budget and the 2003/4 forecast outurn is principally because of the reduced cost of the Private Public Partnership (PPP) contracts, including lower than expected excess claims due to mitigating actions by London Underground and higher performance abatements, and to the replacing of committed expenditure on projects, and a programme of efficiencies to reduce administration costs. As it is difficult to use any unexpected savings incurred late in one year on new projects delivered in the same year, TfL is committed to make all the necessary arrangements and ensure that Londoners receive in 04/05 the maximum benefit from this year's savings by carrying forward monies to earmarked reserves.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Thank you. Could I ask the Commissioner first whether he is happy with the quality of TfL budgeting in the London Underground area, given that there are some huge swings? Central Services with £72 million unspent, for example. Are you happy with how they are now managing the resources?
Bob Kiley, Commissioner, Transport for London: Let me hasten to add that this is not a TfL budget experience that you are describing. This predates us. The Underground was not part of this year's budget. We have been pretty aggressively reviewing the London Underground numbers, and the budget proposal that you will get for 04/05 will be of a very different character.
I do think that they were flying without an instrument panel for a while, in that they could not be certain when these contracts would get signed, or at least the second of the two contracts. Those who designed the budget may have had higher expectations than were warranted, that the infrastructure companies could come up to speed quickly, especially on renewal activity. Obviously they had to come up to speed on day one, hour one, second one on maintenance activity, because there can be no pause there. But on renewal activity they are still getting mobilised, and therefore one area where they expected to have significant additional costs, which were work trains possession time, simply did not happen. It has not happened. That is a planning issue that is very unlikely to be repeated.
I thought you were gong to ask me another question, which was: how happy are you with the infrastructure companies? Their performance obviously has an impact on the Underground budget and we are not entirely happy. We are going to be very patient. Tube Lines has now completed its first year, and Metronet will be completing its first year in April, so upon the completion of Metronet's first year, which is 70% of the system, we will be doing an appraisal of just where we think we are after one year. We have tried to be patient with them; I think, actually, the working relationships with the companies are decent. Tim O'Toole (Managing Director, London Underground Ltd) spends an awful lot of time at this. I would also say that, on our side, we need to improve our own management, because there is a lot more to watch than perhaps our people realise.
That is going to be a resource commitment, which the Government last February said they would take into account, with some slightly weaselly language, I would quickly add. If we needed more help to manage the contracts, they would seriously consider it, so that will be part of the spending review that we are going through right now. There is a lot that has to be done before any of us will be in a position to say that this procurement is unfolding in a really constructive, useful way. But I am not going to be unduly negative until we get to the end of the first year.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): I noted the near £100 million projected underspend on the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts and the PPP contracts, but, ever attempting to be fair, was not going to hold you responsible for the whole of that. Just one supplementary on that point before I return to the Mayor. The fines that are being levied - I think the note I have here is £32.2 million fines due to TfL from Metronet and Tube Lines - that is presumably not budgeted for. You do not budget for fines, so how does that interact in terms of… Bob Kiley, Commissioner, Transport for London: I am not sure I completely understand your question.
The Mayor: The fines for the lateness of trains and so on.
Bob Kiley, Commissioner, Transport for London: The fines? The abatements?
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Where is that money going to? Because you are not, presumably, budgeting to have fine income come in. Where is that resource going to be deployed?
Bob Kiley, Commissioner, Transport for London: Effectively, it works out to be a net cost analysis. Abatements are deducted from positive incentives or vice versa, depending on which is greater. Off the top of my head, I do not recall what the going-in estimate was when the current year's budget was prepared. But we can do an analysis for you, if you would like to see how it has gone so far. I just saw it for the first time myself about three weeks ago. Why do I not endeavour to do that, in order to give you an accurate portrayal?
Mike Tuffrey (AM): That would be helpful. Can I then just return to the Mayor in my final question? When confronted with the problems on the Tube, your typical response is, 'oh well, my hands are tied; I have only just taken it over; it is nowt to do with me, guv'. But the fact is that in this financial year, there is £140 million of resources that could have been deployed on improving the services. Just to give an indication, that, although I appreciate you cannot spend it in a year, is equivalent to 50km of track being completely refurbished and six tube junctions being re-signalled, or over 200 escalators being overhauled. You cannot spend that in one year, but what consideration did you give, when it became clear there were underspends, to using that money for improving the service today, rather than put it in reserves and thus hold down the Council Tax in an election year?
The Mayor: If you look at the budget overall we anticipate that, out of a budget on the Underground of £1.146 billion, there will be a £140 million underspend at the end of the year. Three big items dominate that: £87 million underspend on the PPP contracts; £13 million on the PFI contracts; and then Central Services £73 million. On Central Services I am not alarmed, because I expect that is where there is real waste, there is really unnecessary bureaucracy and where Jay Walder will be bearing down to divert resources into real improvements. On the PFIs, we have two seriously underperforming PFIs, which may go belly-up - a real danger that is there. But on the contracts on the PPPs, the £83 million, they have not claimed, because it is work they have not done. Given that there were no contracts of this complexity that anyone has got any experience with in Britain, I think the PPP companies are finding a much more difficult problem that they envisaged.
Mike Tuffrey (AM): Why are you not taking that money and using it on some quick wins in this financial year?
The Mayor: The real problem is we have to do the work through the PPPs. They are struggling to keep ahead with the maintenance; they have no plans, in this decade, for doing the big capital projects that you are beginning to talk of. It is no good going back to firms that have failed to claim £87 million they were entitled to for doing work they should have done this year, and go back to them and say, 'could you do something else instead?' This is our problem. If we could go to firms outside and bring them in, which is the freedom that Bob (Kiley) and myself wanted, that would be an option. But you are asking the offenders to actually spend the extra money. They are not going to do it. I think that they have found the problems infinitely worse than they anticipated, and are struggling just to maintain the service. Therefore, we would love to be able to do that, but we have to go back to them to do it. The people that are underperforming are the people to whom you would be going back to say, 'can you do some extra work?'
I would rather that they did the basic day-to-day maintenance, and thus avoided a crash that would cost lives, than ask them to divert resources on to advancing the escalator repair service, frankly. This is the nightmare that of these contracts - they cannot vary once they are set.
Bob Kiley, Commissioner, Transport for London: I might add that, before we spend the £140 million, we should keep in mind that there are huge variations likely to come in on both of those PFI contracts. While it is true that the Government agreed last February in the settlement that they would meet their responsibilities with respect to those PFIs, it is not clear what the outcome of that will be, because it is going to be tied into the spending review 2004. It is a little bit of a race between the end of this fiscal year and an apparent underspend and a climax in the spending review so that we actually know where we stand during the latter years of the spending review. These two variations have me pretty worried.
The Mayor: Certainly we would be unwise to use this money to, as you imply, reduce the Council Tax. There is no reason on earth why one of these Infracos could not get their act together and start dealing with the backlog of work, in which case we would have to pay for it. It might well be these are teething problems; they will start to catch up. If you recall the TfL budget we started out with had horrendous underspends in the first year, then reduced and then reduced, and broadly now we are managing to spend what is actually granted. There will be a point when these buggers catch up; and if we had spent this money on anything else or used it to make some sexy cut in the Council Tax in election year, and then they come back towards the end of the next financial year and they have done the work, we have got to pay them.
The Mayor, in his comments, has not made mention of third party rights of
appeal, while calling for greater democracy, openness and accountability in the
planning system. Can the Mayor comment on this?
(supplementary questions)
Mike Tuffrey: I was going to invite you to join in the condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Conservatives in posturing the "give the people a say" but then resisting giving the people a say in the regional tier because they oppose effective regional governments. But I won't say that because Nicky has helpfully elevated the tone. I will make the point and respond to your comment on Liberal Democrat policy. It is indeed Lib Dem policy to try and get local decisions made as locally as possible, but absolutely within an appropriate framework so that you don't get NIMBYism and the sorts of problems that have been associated with that. The important thing is that those decisions are exercised locally, would you not agree, within a framework that is democratically approved at each stage, which is why we need regional government for the rest of the UK just as we have the first tentative steps of regional government here in London?
The Mayor: I recall, in a long career in local government, you were never likely to find people welcoming a drug rehabilitation centre in their neighbourhood, or even sometimes a refuge for battered women. At some point you have to be able to say, "We heard what you say, but there's a wider London". That came home to me most strikingly in a debate with the Labour candidate Frank Dobson at the last election. The issue of whether we should have a major conference centre at Kings Cross came up and Frank, as the local MP, had the instant response "No, this should be a matter for the local wards to decide." That is inevitably what an MP is going to feel about constituents. They are there to represent them. But a site like Kings Cross is a London-wide responsibility and you would expect the local community to get something out of it, but not to determine its outcome.
Mike Tuffrey:
What will you do to ensure that the Greater London Authority has the same powers that look likely to be granted to any new regional Assembly, as announced in the government's White Paper of 9 May, especially as they relate to economic and social regeneration in areas such as housing strategy and skills development?
Ken Livingstone: In advance of my meeting with him on 19 June, I have written to the Minister for London, Nick Raynsford, expressing my dismay at the disappointing and perverse approach the White Paper adopts in relation to London. I have insisted that it is illogical to propose to give powers to completely new and untested authorities, whilst at the same time refusing to even consider extending those powers to this authority, which has a two-year track record and which - by the time any of the elected regional assemblies are in place - is likely to have existed for five or six years. Copies of my letter are available from the Assembly Secretariat. I am particularly disturbed that there have been no proposals in the White Paper for the regional assemblies to have waste authority functions. That is the biggest gap that I can see.
Mike Tuffrey: Would you agree that there is an opportunity - where the regional assemblies outside London have greater powers than we do - to insert "and London" as the bill goes through parliament? What is good enough for outside London is certainly good enough for London! Whether we can take a lead in doing that is the first issue.
My second question is, would you agree that now we're two years in and we can start to learn some of the lessons as to what is and isn't working, shouldn't we be sharing that with Parliamentary colleagues when the White Paper turns into legislation, to help foster a debate - which certainly, from the Liberal Democrats side, we want - as to increasing the regional tier in government in this country?
Ken Livingstone: The Management Board looked at how we'll proceed on this, and we will certainly set up a major lobbying operation particularly geared towards the House of Lords. I suspect it will be unlikely - given the government's present majority - that the Bill will be amendable in committee or on the floor of the Commons - but very often, as with the GLA Bill, amendments are made in the Lords stage, and then the government has to learn to live with them. The extra powers that assemblies will get that we don't have are hardly earth-shattering: some greater influence over the train operating companies, some degree of control over the housing allocation of funds, and two or three other small areas. The reverse of all of this is, given the assemblies won't have the policing powers that we have and won't have the transport powers, one has to wonder what sort of people are going to stand for bodies which are full time and have such a small remit.
In my opinion, for assemblies to work they should be the Waste Authority, they should be the Further and Higher Education Authority, they should be the NHS Regional Authority for the area, and they certainly should now be the Policing Authority. The idea that criminals are confined by county boundaries is nonsense. The Met's about the right size for London. England probably requires 10 to 12 police authorities to be really effective, and equally the case with fire authorities. There are 54 fire authorities in England, each with a chief officer and a training school - there are huge economies of scale that could be mobilised for what are genuinely regional responsibilities. If I can echo Peter Mandelson - it is the absolute timidity of this government that is so breathtaking. That after five years in office they have such a small and paltry load of baubles with which to create regional government.
Mike Tuffrey:
How would you benchmark your success in seeing a reduction in graffiti across London?
Ken Livingstone: I agree with the Assembly's report that the Capital Standard Street Environment Programme should promote the reduction of graffiti, and my advisors will be pursuing this through the programme board. Part of the programme will be to collect information on the standard of cleanliness and general environmental conditions in London. A benchmark survey will be undertaken this year, which will provide benchmarks against which future annual surveys will assess progress. There will also be a comparison with regional and national standards. My advisors have already participated in the external challenge for best value reviews on waste for two London boroughs, and more are expected. There is good practice within London. For example, the London Borough of Ealing removes graffiti on its property within 24 hours. It's important that the best practise is used throughout London and that ways of deterring perpetrators, such as closed circuit TV and enforcement, are used wherever possible.
Mike Tuffrey
Can you let me know, by Borough, how many extra police officers there are on the streets since May 2001, and what steps have you taken to ensure they are deployed in areas of greatest need?
Ken Livingstone: In my budget for 2001/02, I provided resources for an additional 1,050, police officers; modernisation of MPS information technology systems; continuation of volume crime initiatives; and increased use of DNA testing to solve crimes.
In addition to meeting the cost of implementing these priority areas, my budget for 2002/03 has been framed to provide resources to:
" Increase the number of police officers engaged on operational policing by a further 1,200, with the recruitment of black and ethnic minority officers as paramount; " Deliver a modern enforcement strategy for London's buses and taxis in partnership with Transport for London " Continue to provide a package of measures addressing recruitment and retention issues for civil staff " Implement the first tranche of efficiency and effectiveness reviews and continue to undertake a programme of independent reviews with the aim of achieving savings to fund future police service developments
The allocation of police resources within London is a matter for the MPA and MPS. The number of officers assigned to each individual borough has been determined by means of the Resource Allocation Formula, which was approved by the Metropolitan Police Authority in December 2001, following extensive development and consultation. The whole idea of the new formula is to ensure that police resources are targeted at boroughs with most need. Proposals include demand, need and the resource requirements of maintaining the infrastructure to run basic policing services. These measures should lead to police resources being targeted effectively to those areas with the greatest need. My officers will keep me appraised of the situation.
Mike Tuffrey
Which bus routes have shown the largest percentage increases in passengers in the last 12 months?
Ken Livingstone: Growth in bus ridership has been widespread and general across the network, not limited to specific routes:
2000/1 2001/2
(millions) (millions)
All travel on bus routes that enter zone
1:
548m 579m
(+5.7%)
All travel on bus routes that do not enter zone 1:
806m 851m
(+5.6%)
Total
1354m 1430m
(+5.6%)
Growth has occurred at all times and 96% of the total is on day services. The largest proportional increases are at weekends and at night:
Weekdays
+54m (+5%)
Saturdays
+10m (+6%)
Sundays/Bank Holidays +9m (+9%)
Nights
+3m (+20%)
These figures are based on the provisional results for 2001/2.
Underpinning this increased ridership has been an increase in service levels. London Buses has ambitious proposals for further expansion across the network and recently published a consultation document on its plans for Inner London. The bus network is actively managed to ensure it continues to meet users' needs and there are more than 400 changes per year, ranging from new schedules to significant alterations in route structures and expansion into currently-unserved areas. Service alterations and expansion are one of many factors which influence bus patronage levels. Others include: fares levels and changes in employment, population and consumer spending patterns.
MIKE TUFFREY: Thank you chair. Attention is focussed on the 18th and 19th May. I actually think we should be focussing on the 19th June when you came and voluntarily gave us a statement essentially on the assault, the man handling, and disappearing trick. You denied those but the position we are faced with today is that there are others who are saying other things. Now if they are telling the truth, you are lying to us. It is very difficult for us to form a judgment of that. We are not, as my colleague has said, a kangaroo court. That is why our view from the Liberal Democrat side is that this matter should go to the Standards Board and I would first of all ask you whether you will cooperate fully with that should that happen?
KEN LIVINGSTONE: If any of you wish to refer to the Standards Board and they want to investigate it I would happy to turn up and answer all their questions. But I have to say I am not certain how well equipped they are to deal with this either, frankly. I think the Standards Board was set up for those politicians likely to dip their hand in the till rather than to investigate parties in Islington at 1 o'clock in the morning.
MIKE TUFFREY: Effectively people are saying that you are lying to us and that matter should be investigated.
KEN LIVINGSTONE: The good news you have got is that the statement I made last week I stand by. I have not changed a sentence or a subclause. What we clearly have here is the two main people disagreeing with me. Mr Williams in his original anonymous comments in the Evening Standard makes no reference at all to what he then said two weeks later when he developed perfect recall. Mr Robin Hedges has of course changed, I think under pressure from the Evening Standard. I do say I do not want him now victimised by this -- he has changed his line. I will not be changing what I said to you last week or this week whoever else is interviewing me or questioning me.
MIKE TUFFREY: The second thing that you did on June 19th was to up the ante and turn this into a question of media ethics. Certainly I would have some sympathy with what you say in terms of Londoners wanting to see the back of this and getting to the bottom of it. But you have chosen to raise this to one of media ethics but are refusing then to take the two obvious routes open to you; one is the Press Complaints Committee and the other is to sue. Would you accept that Londoners who would like to get to the bottom of this would find it somewhat incredible, you having raised the ante, then not following it through?
KEN LIVINGSTONE: Well I am not going to put at risk some quarter of a million pounds in some legal case that most likely would not even be resolved before the next Mayoral election. As I say I have no great confidence in the Press Complaints Commission any more than I had in its predecessor body. I suspect Londoners have got enough information now: they have seen page after page in the Evening Standard, they have heard my account of this, they have heard the rival accounts. I am happy to leave it to them to come to a conclusion on all of this. People did say to me that it was unwise to be critical of a newspaper editor, particularly when that one has a monopoly in the city in which you are Mayor. It does seem to me that when people have great power and they use it as badly as Veronica Whadley has done you need to stand up to them and not hope that if you keep quiet they will not do it again. I am certain she will do it again and I am certain Londoners will view further attacks by the Evening Standard on me in the light of what has just been happening in the last few weeks.
Mike Tuffrey
Do you agree with the findings of the Economic and Social Research Council commissioned report "The Greater London Authority and Network governance" that greater powers over taxation and expenditure should be devolved to the GLA, and what have you done recently to make the case to central government?
The Mayor: The report contains a variety of interesting quotations including:
The report also suggests that there is a clear logic for the Mayor to have more control over health and education resources and points out many of the difficulties inherent in the current system of an elected Mayor, 33 different boroughs and a central government that retains a major interventionist and controlling role. It does not actually recommend increasing the Mayor's powers of taxation.
Mike Tuffrey: I would agree that there are several areas where it would be desirable to increase the powers of the Mayor; to that end I recently wrote to Nick Raynsford in response to the White Paper on regional government suggesting that the GLA was granted the same powers as those proposed for the other English regions. In particular it is difficult to understand how devolution of responsibilities for strategic housing, for tourism and for European structural funds can be proposed for the other English regions and not be extended to London.
Mike Tuffrey: Can I ask how you can conceivably say that the "strike ballot is an internal matter for the trade unions" in which you will not intervene, when the result of a strike vote and withdrawal of labour might very well be that Londoners lose their lives?
The Mayor: My experience with the trade union movement - which goes back over 35 years - is that you will actually have more influence in what you say privately, rather than what is broadcast on the front page of The Evening Standard. I am sure I will get wonderful editorials supporting me if I denounce this, that or the other trade union on a weekly basis, but it would rapidly mean that any ability I had to influence trade union policy on industrial action would evaporate with the first opening of my mouth.