Agenda item

The Assembly is under a duty to consider the Mayor’s Draft Consolidated Budget and to approve it, with or without amendment (paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 6 of the GLA Act 1999 (as amended)).

 

The following substantive motion is before the Assembly:

 

“To approve the Draft Consolidated Budget for 2015-16, together with the draft component budgets comprised within it, with or without amendment.”

 

[Note: In accordance with GLA Standing Order 6.12 B, the motion set out above shall be considered without being proposed or seconded by a Member. The motion may be amended by a Budget Amendment, in accordance with the procedures described in Standing Orders 6.10, 6.12 and 6.16. The Assembly will consider amendments to the Draft Consolidated Budget, and budget-related motions (if any).

 

If a Budget Amendment is carried by the requisite majority (at this stage, a simple majority of votes cast) then the substantive motion shall fall and the Draft Consolidated Budget shall be deemed agreed as amended. The Mayor is under a duty to respond to any amendments passed when he presents his Final Budget.

 

If no amendment is agreed, or if the substantive motion is not passed (whether put to the vote or not) then the Assembly is deemed by law (Paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 6 to the GLA Act 1999) to have approved the Draft Consolidated Budget without amendment.

 

This is the first part of a two stage budget-setting process and the Assembly is due to make a final decision on the budget at the London Assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) meeting on 23 February 2015.]

3.9  At 12.23pm, the Chairman adjourned the meeting until 1.25pm. The meeting reconvened at 1.25pm, to conclude the question and answer session with the Mayor and to then proceed to debate the budget proposals

 

3.10  The substantive motion before the Assembly was: “To approve the Draft Consolidated Budget for 2015/16, together with the draft component budgets comprised within it, with or without amendment.”

 

3.11  A formal budget amendment was moved by Gareth Bacon AM and seconded by Andrew Boff AM (and is attached as Appendix 4).

 

3.12  A formal budget amendment was moved by Stephen Knight AM and seconded by Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM (and is attached as Appendix 5).

3.13  A formal budget amendment was moved by John Biggs AM and seconded by Valerie Shawcross CBE AM (and is attached as Appendix 6).

 

3.14  A formal budget amendment, was moved by Darren Johnson AM and seconded by Jenny Jones AM (and is attached as Appendix 7).

 

3.15  The Assembly then turned to debate of the Mayor’s Draft Consolidated Budget 2015/16 and the four formal budget amendments.

3.16  During the debate the Chairman welcomed students from St Helen’s Catholic Primary School in Newham to the meeting.

 

3.17  Following the debate and upon being put to the vote:

 

The formal budget amendment proposed by Gareth Bacon AM was declared lost (with 9 votes being cast in favour and 16 votes being cast against).

 

The formal budget amendment proposed by Stephen Knight AM was declared lost (with 2 votes being cast in favour and 23 votes being cast against).

 

The formal budget amendment proposed by John Biggs AM was declared lost (with 12 votes being cast in favour and 13 votes being cast against).

 

The formal budget amendment proposed by Darren Johnson AM was declared lost (with 2 votes being cast in favour and 23 votes being cast against).

 

3.18  A further formal budget amendment, regarding the off-peak Pay As You Go daily cap for outer London, was moved by Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and seconded by Stephen Knight AM (and is attached as Appendix 8).

 

3.19  Following debate and being put to the vote, the formal budget amendment proposed by Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM was declared lost (with 11 votes being cast in favour and 14 votes being cast against).

 

3.20  A further formal budget amendment was moved by Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and, with the approval of the Chairman, seconded by Darren Johnson AM and Valerie Shawcross CBE AM (and is attached as Appendix 9).

 

3.21  Following debate and being put to the vote, the formal budget amendment proposed by Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM was declared carried (with 16 votes being cast in favour and 9 votes being cast against).

3.22  Jenny Jones AM moved and Darren Johnson AM seconded the following budget related motion:

“This Assembly welcomes the ambition in Government’s Solar PV Strategy to ensure that “not one inch of suitable Government roof space is wasted”, and the target to install solar panels on 24,000 schools. We note that to date London has the lowest rate of solar panel installation per home of any region in the UK, and are concerned that London’s schools may also miss out on this opportunity.

This Assembly notes that the Mayor’s draft budget for 2015-16 lacks any specific work stream to support this strategy in London, and that he has £0.5m unallocated in the Development, Enterprise & Environment Directorate budget to fund additional smaller programmes.

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to strongly consider funding a solar PV delivery unit using some of this unallocated money.”

3.23  Upon being put to the vote, the budget related motion in the name of Jenny Jones AM, namely:

“This Assembly welcomes the ambition in Government’s Solar PV Strategy to ensure that “not one inch of suitable Government roof space is wasted”, and the target to install solar panels on 24,000 schools. We note that to date London has the lowest rate of solar panel installation per home of any region in the UK, and are concerned that London’s schools may also miss out on this opportunity.

 

This Assembly notes that the Mayor’s draft budget for 2015-16 lacks any specific work stream to support this strategy in London, and that he has £0.5m unallocated in the Development, Enterprise & Environment Directorate budget to fund additional smaller programmes.

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to strongly consider funding a solar PV delivery unit using some of this unallocated money.”

was agreed (with 13 votes cast in favour and 12 votes cast against).

 

3.24  Darren Johnson AM moved and Jenny Jones AM seconded the following budget related motion:

“This Assembly believes it is clear that the Mayor will not deliver on the commitments to cycling made in his manifesto and his action plan for cycling in his term of office. We welcome the fact that Transport for London has increased the over-programming in its budget to address the consistent shortfalls in delivery in the last seven years. However, we are concerned that TfL still doesn’t have sufficient capacity to fully meet Londoners’ ambitions to have safer roads that everyone could use, whether they are 8 year old or 80 year old. Whilst it is important that consultation processes are done properly, the plans have not been brought forward to the starting point quickly enough.

 

This Assembly is especially concerned that many dangerous junctions are not going to be made safer for several years and that greater effort must be made now to bring these neglected junctions to the point where formal consultations can start. We are also concerned that the proposed changes are too focused upon central London, with many areas of inner and outer London being neglected.

 

Whilst welcoming the fact that many changes are finally due to be happening in the coming year, this Assembly therefore calls on Transport for London to increase the pace of these changes by committing 2% of its total budget in 2015-16 to cycling.”

 

3.25  Upon being put to the vote, the budget related motion in the name of Darren Johnson AM, namely:

“This Assembly believes it is clear that the Mayor will not deliver on the commitments to cycling made in his manifesto and his action plan for cycling in his term of office. We welcome the fact that Transport for London has increased the over-programming in its budget to address the consistent shortfalls in delivery in the last seven years. However, we are concerned that TfL still doesn’t have sufficient capacity to fully meet Londoners’ ambitions to have safer roads that everyone could use, whether they are 8 year old or 80 year old. Whilst it is important that consultation processes are done properly, the plans have not been brought forward to the starting point quickly enough.

 

This Assembly is especially concerned that many dangerous junctions are not going to be made safer for several years and that greater effort must be made now to bring these neglected junctions to the point where formal consultations can start. We are also concerned that the proposed changes are too focused upon central London, with many areas of inner and outer London being neglected.

 

Whilst welcoming the fact that many changes are finally due to be happening in the coming year, this Assembly therefore calls on Transport for London to increase the pace of these changes by committing 2% of its total budget in 2015-16 to cycling.”

was agreed (with 16 votes cast in favour and 9 votes cast against).

 

3.26  Darren Johnson AM moved and Jenny Jones AM seconded the following budget related motion:

“This Assembly notes that the Mayor has spent at least £11 million developing his proposals for major road bridges and tunnels across the Thames since he came into office in 2008, following £32 million spent by his predecessor toward the same end. These proposed crossings would increase traffic levels and pollution in east London, damaging health and the climate and blighting neighbourhoods.

 

This Assembly notes that the combined money wasted on planning to date would have been more than sufficient to plan and build a much-needed pedestrian and cycle link such as proposals to link Battersea to Fulham, or Canary Wharf to Rotherhithe.

This Assembly notes that the Mayor plans to spend at least £12 million on the development consent order process for the proposed Silvertown tunnel which will have no provision for pedestrians and cyclists, and that this forms part of up to £28 billion of plans to increase road capacity across London in coming decades.

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to cancel plans to build road crossings across the Thames in east London, and to reallocate the money to be spent in 2015-16 on public transport, cycling and walking instead.”

 

3.27  Upon being put to the vote, the budget related motion in the name of Darren Johnson AM, namely:

“This Assembly notes that the Mayor has spent at least £11 million developing his proposals for major road bridges and tunnels across the Thames since he came into office in 2008, following £32 million spent by his predecessor toward the same end. These proposed crossings would increase traffic levels and pollution in east London, damaging health and the climate and blighting neighbourhoods.

 

This Assembly notes that the combined money wasted on planning to date would have been more than sufficient to plan and build a much-needed pedestrian and cycle link such as proposals to link Battersea to Fulham, or Canary Wharf to Rotherhithe.

 

This Assembly notes that the Mayor plans to spend at least £12 million on the development consent order process for the proposed Silvertown tunnel which will have no provision for pedestrians and cyclists, and that this forms part of up to £28 billion of plans to increase road capacity across London in coming decades.

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to cancel plans to build road crossings across the Thames in east London, and to reallocate the money to be spent in 2015-16 on public transport, cycling and walking instead.”

 

was lost (with 4 votes cast in favour and 21 votes cast against).

 

3.28  John Biggs AM moved and Valerie Shawcross CBE AM seconded the following budget related motion:

 

“This Assembly believes that, while the Mayor has been quick to trumpet the “amazing success”^[1] of his Mayoralty, he has undermined the ability of his successor to ensure London has a sufficient number of police officers, wasted considerable sums of Londoners’ money on ‘white elephants’ and vanity projects, failed to address London’s housing crisis in a meaningful way, and leaves a legacy of insecure and low paid employment in the capital.

 

Policing

 

This Assembly notes the Mayor’s insistence that he protected the Metropolitan Police Service’s operational capability during his Mayoralty^[2]. However, this rhetoric is contradicted by the facts:

 

·  Police numbers have not actually been at 32,000 at any point during this Mayoralty and were, in fact, as low as 30,036 in January 2014^[3];

·  Since May 2010, 2,550 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) have been lost across London^[4] – a 60% cut.

·  Insufficient numbers of officers and the loss of PCSOs has led directly to an overstretched police force with low morale^[5].

·  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary^[6] (HMIC) and the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime^[7] have been forced to conclude that there will be further ‘drastic’ cuts to police numbers after 2016 if further funding is not found.

 

As a consequence of Boris Johnson’s cuts, it will be impossible for the next Mayor of London to maintain sufficient police numbers without additional funding. The Metropolitan Police Federation recently reminded Londoners that “playing Russian roulette with the safety and welfare of our communities and the brave officers of the Metropolitan Police is simply not acceptable”[8]. Cuts have consequences.

 

Transport

 

This Assembly notes that, despite using his penultimate budget to emphasise his ‘determination to cut the cost of living for Londoners’^[9] by implementing a precept cut worth 7.7 pence per week to average Band D household^[10], the Mayor has been responsible for a 47% increase in bus fares and a 37% increase in Tube fares since 2008^[11].

 

While reducing the GLA share of council by £4 in 2015-16, a couple living in Uxbridge using Zone 1-6 annual Travelcards will have seen their annual fare rise by £1,120^[12] since Boris Johnson came to power.

 

This Assembly also notes that, despite claiming that one of his greatest priorities is “to ensure that every penny the GLA spends delivers value for money for the taxpayer”, the Mayor has squandered vast sums of Londoners’ money on vanity projects and ‘white elephant’ transport projects:

 

·  The Cable Car that Boris claimed ‘wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny’^[13], which subsequently cost taxpayers £61m^[14] to build and was later found to have just four regular users^[15];

·  The Cycle Hire scheme that Boris pledged to introduce at ‘no cost to the taxpayer’^[16], which will have cost taxpayers £225m by 2016^[17], making it the most costly to the taxpayer in the world^[18].

·  The ‘new Routemaster Bus’ fleet, which will cost £40m more to purchase than an equivalent number of hybrid double-deckers^[19]; and, due to the need for an second crew member, will cost a further £37.2million per year to operate than the hybrid alternative^[20].

·  The ‘Garden Bridge’ is already costing taxpayers £60m[21], but the taxpayer share of this project – described in the Daily Telegraph as “a costly nightmare, a gargantuan vanity project and a marketing tool”^[22], and which Boris Johnson himself admitted he ‘doesn’t quite know the point of’^[23] – risks ballooning to almost £100m if an outstanding £65m can’t be found.

·  The ‘fantasy island airport’ feasibility study, which the Mayor spent £5.2m^[24] of taxpayers’ money on, despite Conservative-run Medway Council stating that it was a proposal “without any known financial backing, poor connectivity, a disastrous environmental impact, and…little support from airlines.”^[25]

 

Housing

 

This Assembly believes that, with 379,990 London households living in overcrowded houses,^[26] average house prices now topping £500,000 for the first time^[27], and with average private rents due to reach £1,600 a month by the end of Boris Johnson’s term in 2016^[28], there can be no doubt that one of Boris Johnson’s main legacies as Mayor will be London’s severe housing shortage.

 

On every level – supply, affordable housing, and property standards – the housing picture has dramatically deteriorated since Boris Johnson’s election in 2008:

 

·  The Mayor will leave office having failed to deliver both of his affordable housing programmes to deadline.^[29][30]

·  The Mayor’s reforms to affordable housing have meant that in some parts of inner-London, households could now require an income above £100,000 per year to afford the rent on a family-sized ‘affordable’ home.^[31]

·  On property standards, one-third of London’s privately rented homes – more than 250,000 – still fall below the Decent Homes standard used in the social rented sector, the largest proportion of any tenure in London.^[32]

 

Economy

 

Despite claiming that his “Budget is central to the promotion of jobs”^[33], Boris Johnson’s record is questionable. Of the 200,000 jobs the Mayor has pledged to create, at least 131,000 are in the construction industry^[34]. However, forecasts by GLA Economics show that just 1,000 extra jobs are expected to have been created in this sector by 2016, highlighting the degree to which the Mayor’s jobs pledge has entirely misled Londoners.^[35] In fact, jobs growth in this sector is expected to decline in each year from 2014 up until 2016.^[36] Furthermore, the Mayor has abandoned his manifesto commitment to specifically “lead a campaign for 20,000 part-time jobs to help parents return to work”^[37].

 

While this Assembly recognises that the Mayor has built on the work of his predecessor in promoting the London Living Wage, it notes that Boris Johnson’s efforts to promote a voluntary Living Wage have clearly been insufficient – the number of jobs paying less than the London Living Wage has increased sharply since 2007 from 13% to 17% of all jobs in the capital – that’s an extra 180,000 people earning less than they need for a basic existence in the capital[38].

 

Given his failings in these areas of strategic importance to London, this Assembly calls on the Mayor of London to revisit his 2015-16 Budget proposals with renewed emphasis on keeping Londoners safe, helping them travel around the city at reasonable cost, enabling them to find suitable homes, and creating a labour market that rewards hard work with fair pay.”

 

3.29  Upon being put to the vote, the budget related motion in the name of John Biggs AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly believes that, while the Mayor has been quick to trumpet the “amazing success”^[39] of his Mayoralty, he has undermined the ability of his successor to ensure London has a sufficient number of police officers, wasted considerable sums of Londoners’ money on ‘white elephants’ and vanity projects, failed to address London’s housing crisis in a meaningful way, and leaves a legacy of insecure and low paid employment in the capital.

 

Policing

 

This Assembly notes the Mayor’s insistence that he protected the Metropolitan Police Service’s operational capability during his Mayoralty^[40]. However, this rhetoric is contradicted by the facts:

 

·  Police numbers have not actually been at 32,000 at any point during this Mayoralty and were, in fact, as low as 30,036 in January 2014^[41];

·  Since May 2010, 2,550 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) have been lost across London^[42] – a 60% cut.

·  Insufficient numbers of officers and the loss of PCSOs has led directly to an overstretched police force with low morale^[43].

·  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary^[44] (HMIC) and the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime^[45] have been forced to conclude that there will be further ‘drastic’ cuts to police numbers after 2016 if further funding is not found.

 

As a consequence of Boris Johnson’s cuts, it will be impossible for the next Mayor of London to maintain sufficient police numbers without additional funding. The Metropolitan Police Federation recently reminded Londoners that “playing Russian roulette with the safety and welfare of our communities and the brave officers of the Metropolitan Police is simply not acceptable”[46]. Cuts have consequences.

 

 

 

Transport

 

This Assembly notes that, despite using his penultimate budget to emphasise his ‘determination to cut the cost of living for Londoners’^[47] by implementing a precept cut worth 7.7 pence per week to average Band D household^[48], the Mayor has been responsible for a 47% increase in bus fares and a 37% increase in Tube fares since 2008^[49].

 

While reducing the GLA share of council by £4 in 2015-16, a couple living in Uxbridge using Zone 1-6 annual Travelcards will have seen their annual fare rise by £1,120^[50] since Boris Johnson came to power.

This Assembly also notes that, despite claiming that one of his greatest priorities is “to ensure that every penny the GLA spends delivers value for money for the taxpayer”, the Mayor has squandered vast sums of Londoners’ money on vanity projects and ‘white elephant’ transport projects:

 

·  The Cable Car that Boris claimed ‘wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny’^[51], which subsequently cost taxpayers £61m^[52] to build and was later found to have just four regular users^[53];

·  The Cycle Hire scheme that Boris pledged to introduce at ‘no cost to the taxpayer’^[54], which will have cost taxpayers £225m by 2016^[55], making it the most costly to the taxpayer in the world^[56].

·  The ‘new Routemaster Bus’ fleet, which will cost £40m more to purchase than an equivalent number of hybrid double-deckers^[57]; and, due to the need for an second crew member, will cost a further £37.2million per year to operate than the hybrid alternative^[58].

·  The ‘Garden Bridge’ is already costing taxpayers £60m[59], but the taxpayer share of this project – described in the Daily Telegraph as “a costly nightmare, a gargantuan vanity project and a marketing tool”^[60], and which Boris Johnson himself admitted he ‘doesn’t quite know the point of’^[61] – risks ballooning to almost £100m if an outstanding £65m can’t be found.

·  The ‘fantasy island airport’ feasibility study, which the Mayor spent £5.2m^[62] of taxpayers’ money on, despite Conservative-run Medway Council stating that it was a proposal “without any known financial backing, poor connectivity, a disastrous environmental impact, and…little support from airlines.”^[63]

 

Housing

 

This Assembly believes that, with 379,990 London households living in overcrowded houses,^[64] average house prices now topping £500,000 for the first time^[65], and with average private rents due to reach £1,600 a month by the end of Boris Johnson’s term in 2016^[66], there can be no doubt that one of Boris Johnson’s main legacies as Mayor will be London’s severe housing shortage.

 

On every level – supply, affordable housing, and property standards – the housing picture has dramatically deteriorated since Boris Johnson’s election in 2008:

 

·  The Mayor will leave office having failed to deliver both of his affordable housing programmes to deadline.^[67][68]

·  The Mayor’s reforms to affordable housing have meant that in some parts of inner-London, households could now require an income above £100,000 per year to afford the rent on a family-sized ‘affordable’ home.^[69]

·  On property standards, one-third of London’s privately rented homes – more than 250,000 – still fall below the Decent Homes standard used in the social rented sector, the largest proportion of any tenure in London.^[70]

 

Economy

 

Despite claiming that his “Budget is central to the promotion of jobs”^[71], Boris Johnson’s record is questionable. Of the 200,000 jobs the Mayor has pledged to create, at least 131,000 are in the construction industry^[72]. However, forecasts by GLA Economics show that just 1,000 extra jobs are expected to have been created in this sector by 2016, highlighting the degree to which the Mayor’s jobs pledge has entirely misled Londoners.^[73] In fact, jobs growth in this sector is expected to decline in each year from 2014 up until 2016.^[74] Furthermore, the Mayor has abandoned his manifesto commitment to specifically “lead a campaign for 20,000 part-time jobs to help parents return to work”^[75].

 

While this Assembly recognises that the Mayor has built on the work of his predecessor in promoting the London Living Wage, it notes that Boris Johnson’s efforts to promote a voluntary Living Wage have clearly been insufficient – the number of jobs paying less than the London Living Wage has increased sharply since 2007 from 13% to 17% of all jobs in the capital – that’s an extra 180,000 people earning less than they need for a basic existence in the capital[76].

 

Given his failings in these areas of strategic importance to London, this Assembly calls on the Mayor of London to revisit his 2015-16 Budget proposals with renewed emphasis on keeping Londoners safe, helping them travel around the city at reasonable cost, enabling them to find suitable homes, and creating a labour market that rewards hard work with fair pay.”

 

was agreed (with 12 votes cast in favour and 9 votes cast against).

 

3.30  The Chairman confirmed that there were no other formal budget amendments for the Assembly’s consideration and that, as one formal budget amendment had attracted a simple majority of votes cast in its favour and in accordance with Standing Order 6.7E, the substantive motion before the Assembly had fallen and, in accordance with Paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 6 to the GLA Act 1999 (as amended), the Assembly had approved the Draft Consolidated Budget for 2015/16 as amended.