Agenda item

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat 

Contact: John Barry, [email protected], tel: 020 7983 4425

 

The Assembly is asked to consider the motions submitted by Assembly Members.

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

 

5.2  Andrew Dismore AM moved and Jennette Arnold OBE AM seconded the following motion, altered in accordance with Standing Order 3.6A (1), with the consent of the meeting:

 

“This Assembly condemns thedecisionof a numberof fringe extremeright winggroups to hold a rally in GoldersGreenon 4thJuly,andwelcomesthe decisionof theMetropolitanPoliceto impose conditions tomove theeventaway fromthe areaandto limitits timeandduration.Thisis highly provocativeandis Thedecisionto holdthe rallyin GoldersGreenwas intendedto insultandincite hatredagainstthe Jewishcommunityand,by beingheldon Shabbat,clearlyan attemptto provokea reactionfrom local residents.

 

“2014 saw a significant risein anti-Semiticattacks inLondon, includingin Barnet wherethe rally is to be held, andafter thedeadlyeventsin ParisandCopenhagentargetingJewsandothers,London’sJewish communityis understandablyapprehensiveaboutits security.Irrespectiveof itslocation,thiseventis designedto play on those fears andthe risk of violenceagainst Jewishresidents andbusinesses is clearly present.

 

“Whilstthe demonstrationcannotbe banned,thisAssemblycallsuponthe Mayorto supportathe peaceful,community-ledcounterprotest,solidarityplanto decorateGoldersGreenin greenandgold colourson 3July,includingpermittingTfLstreetfurnitureto bedecoratedwith greenandgoldas part of the community’s response. and

 

“Further,thisAssemblycallsuponthe MetropolitanPoliceCommissionerto ensurethatthe most stringentconditionspossibleareimposedon thefar rightrallyin itsnewlocation,soas toavoid serious disorderandseriousdisruptionto thelocalcommunity,andto continuetakingactionto closedown the anti-Semiticwebsiteadvertisingthe event andto prosecutethose responsiblefor it.”

 

5.3  Upon being put to the vote, the revised motion in the name of Andrew Dismore AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly condemns the decision of a number of fringe extreme right wing groups to hold a rally in Golders Green on 4th July, and welcomes the decision of the Metropolitan Police to impose conditions to move the event away from the area and to limit its time and duration. The decision to hold the rally in Golders Green was intended to insult and incite hatred against the Jewish community and, by being held on Shabbat, clearly an attempt to provoke a reaction from local residents.

 

2014 saw a significant rise in anti-Semitic attacks in London, including in Barnet where the rally is to be held, and after the deadly events in Paris and Copenhagen targeting Jews and others, London’s Jewish community is understandably apprehensive about its security. Irrespective of its location, this event is designed to play on those fears and the risk of violence against Jewish residents and businesses is clearly present.

 

Whilst the demonstration cannot be banned, this Assembly calls upon the Mayor to support the peaceful, community-led solidarity plan to decorate Golders Green in green and gold colours on 3 July, including permitting TfL street furniture to be decorated as part of the community’s response.

 

Further, this Assembly calls upon the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ensure that the most stringent conditions possible are imposed on the far right rally in its new location, so as to avoid serious disorder and serious disruption to the local community, and to continue taking action to close down the anti-Semitic website advertising the event and to prosecute those responsible for it.”

 

  was agreed (with 15 votes cast in favour and one abstention).

 

5.4  Darren Johnson AM moved and Fiona Twycross AM seconded the following motion:

 

“This Assembly notes the GLA’s recent projects for Crystal Palace Park, including: the collapsed deal with the ZhongRong Group to build a major commercial development on the hill top of Crystal Palace Park, which the Mayor secretly brokered following the London 2012 Games without the involvement of local stakeholder groups^[1]; its draft plans to radically redevelop the National Sports Centre and grounds with a significant loss of sporting facilities, which only involved the local sporting community after significant protest^[2]; and the park’s designation, without a clear rationale, in the London Plan as an Outer London Development Centre.

 

This Assembly notes that the Mayor is continuing to pursue secretive discussions with companies regarding building on the park’s hill top^[3], and believes he risks repeating the mistakes of the ZhongRong Group proposals, which resulted in the loss of £4.5 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund^[4] and eighteen wasted months during which community projects were suspended.

 

This Assembly also welcomes that the local community is progressing plans for a Crystal Palace Neighbourhood Forum^[5], and that Bromley Council is working with local stakeholders to establish a community trust to govern Crystal Palace Park^[6].

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to end any private discussions about proposals for development on the park, and engage openly and transparently with the emerging community trust and Neighbourhood Forum in developing any future projects for the park and wider area.”

 

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

 

“This Assembly notes the GLA’s recent projects for Crystal Palace Park, including: the collapsed deal with the ZhongRong Group to build a major commercial development on the hill top of Crystal Palace Park, which the Mayor secretly brokered following the London 2012 Games without the involvement of local stakeholder groups^[1]; its draft plans to radically redevelop the National Sports Centre and grounds with a significant loss of sporting facilities, which only involved the local sporting community after significant protest^[2]; and the park’s designation, without a clear rationale, in the London Plan as an Outer London Development Centre.

 

This Assembly notes that the Mayor is continuing to pursue secretive discussions with companies regarding building on the park’s hill top^[3], and believes he risks repeating the mistakes of the ZhongRong Group proposals, which resulted in the loss of £4.5 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund^[4] and eighteen wasted months during which community projects were suspended.

 

This Assembly also welcomes that the local community is progressing plans for a Crystal Palace Neighbourhood Forum^[5], and that Bromley Council is working with local stakeholders to establish a community trust to govern Crystal Palace Park^[6].

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to end any private discussions about proposals for development on the park, and engage openly and transparently with the emerging community trust and Neighbourhood Forum in developing any future projects for the park and wider area.”

 

  was agreed (with 11 votes cast in favour, three votes cast against).

 

5.6  Fiona Twycross AM moved and Tom Copley AM seconded the following motion:

 

“Following International Justice Day for Cleaners (15 June 2015), this Assembly would like to put on record its support for employees in this sector.

 

Across Greater London, 85 per cent of cleaning jobs are low paid.[7] The cleaning sector is indicative of a wider lack of progress in increasing the number of jobs paying the London Living Wage in London’s low-pay sectors since 2008. In June 2009, the Mayor addressed the British Hospitality Association annual lunch, during which he encouraged the sector to adopt the London Living Wage. Since then, no London-based employers in this sector have become accredited.

 

This Assembly is deeply concerned by the growth of low pay in Greater London. Real wages are now £2,097 a year lower than they were in 2008^[8], while the proportion of jobs paying less than the London Living Wage has increased from 13.2 per cent to 19.4 per cent since the Mayor took office, dragging an additional 348,000 workers further into poverty pay.[9] In London, 917,000 jobs now pay less than the London Living Wage.[10]

 

This Assembly supports the Mayor’s vision for the London Living Wage to be the norm by 2020; but we recognise that the city is moving further away from achieving this objective. In his final year in office, we call on the Mayor to refocus his attentions on reversing this trend. We particularly call on him to focus on London’s low pay sectors and to increase the Greater London Authority resources available for engaging with employers in these sectors.”[11]

 

5.7  Upon being put to the vote, the motion in the name of Fiona Twycross AM, namely:

 

“Following International Justice Day for Cleaners (15 June 2015), this Assembly would like to put on record its support for employees in this sector.

 

Across Greater London, 85 per cent of cleaning jobs are low paid.[7] The cleaning sector is indicative of a wider lack of progress in increasing the number of jobs paying the London Living Wage in London’s low-pay sectors since 2008. In June 2009, the Mayor addressed the British Hospitality Association annual lunch, during which he encouraged the sector to adopt the London Living Wage. Since then, no London-based employers in this sector have become accredited.

 

This Assembly is deeply concerned by the growth of low pay in Greater London. Real wages are now £2,097 a year lower than they were in 2008^[8], while the proportion of jobs paying less than the London Living Wage has increased from 13.2 per cent to 19.4 per cent since the Mayor took office, dragging an additional 348,000 workers further into poverty pay.[9] In London, 917,000 jobs now pay less than the London Living Wage.[10]

 

This Assembly supports the Mayor’s vision for the London Living Wage to be the norm by 2020; but we recognise that the city is moving further away from achieving this objective. In his final year in office, we call on the Mayor to refocus his attentions on reversing this trend. We particularly call on him to focus on London’s low pay sectors and to increase the Greater London Authority resources available for engaging with employers in these sectors.”[11]

 

was agreed (unanimously).

 

5.8  During the course of the discussion, at 12.30pm the Chair proposed, and it was agreed, that Standing Order 2.9B be suspended to extend the meeting in order to allow the remaining items of business on the agenda to be considered.

5.9  Fiona Twycross AM moved and Stephen Knight AM seconded the following motion, altered in accordance with Standing Order 3.6A (1), with the consent of the meeting:

 

“This Assembly notes Mayoral Direction 1516 – LFEPA 2016-17 Budget Options – instructing the Authority to ‘not redeploy’ thirteen fire engines, which are used to support the contingency arrangements during periods of industrial action.

 

This Assembly is deeply concerned that, despite repeated calls at LFEPA for the thirteen appliances to be returned, the Mayor has proceeded with this combative course of action; especially at the point at which LFB and the FBU had reached were close to reaching an agreement on the terms of their return.

 

Furthermore, this Assembly regrets that the Mayor appears intent on the permanent removal of the 13 appliances, despite the fact that alternative budget options have not yet been formally considered by LFEPA, and while considerable work is being undertaken by officers and board members on finding alternatives to additional frontline cuts to meet the Mayor’s £11m reduction in the 2016/17 fire service budget.

 

This Assembly regards the Mayor’s Direction as unnecessary, and believes that it demonstrates that the Mayor is not committed to protecting frontline emergency services in the capital. Furthermore, the Assembly believes that the premise upon which the decision appears to have been made is not sufficiently strong to demonstrate that the safety of Londoners will not be jeopardised by his Decision; especially were that Decision the first step towards permanent removal of the thirteen appliances.

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to withdraw MD 1516 and to allow the re-introduction of the 13 appliances to London’s streets immediately, returning fire cover to the levels committed to within the fifth London Safety Plan (LSP5).”

 

5.10  Upon being put to the vote, the revised motion in the name of Fiona Twycross AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly notes Mayoral Direction 1516 – LFEPA 2016-17 Budget Options – instructing the Authority to ‘not redeploy’ thirteen fire engines, which are used to support the contingency arrangements during periods of industrial action.

 

This Assembly is deeply concerned that, despite repeated calls at LFEPA for the thirteen appliances to be returned, the Mayor has proceeded with this combative course of action; especially at the point at which LFB and the FBU were close to reaching an agreement on the terms of their return.

 

Furthermore, this Assembly regrets that the Mayor appears intent on the permanent removal of the 13 appliances, despite the fact that alternative budget options have not yet been formally considered by LFEPA, and while considerable work is being undertaken by officers and board members on finding alternatives to additional frontline cuts to meet the Mayor’s £11m reduction in the 2016/17 fire service budget.

 

This Assembly regards the Mayor’s Direction as unnecessary, and believes that it demonstrates that the Mayor is not committed to protecting frontline emergency services in the capital. Furthermore, the Assembly believes that the premise upon which the decision appears to have been made is not sufficiently strong to demonstrate that the safety of Londoners will not be jeopardised by his Decision; especially were that Decision the first step towards permanent removal of the thirteen appliances.

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to withdraw MD 1516 and to allow the re-introduction of the 13 appliances to London’s streets immediately, returning fire cover to the levels committed to within the fifth London Safety Plan (LSP5).”

 

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

 

5.11  Murad Qureshi AM moved and Navin Shah AM seconded the following motion, altered in accordance with Standing Order 3.6A (1), with the consent of the meeting:

 

“The London Assembly is concerned that the quality of London’s universal postal service is under threat following the Chancellor Exchequer’s recent announcement that the Government is to sell its remaining stake in Royal Mail^[12].  Shortly after this announcement the Government sold half of its remaining 30 per cent share^[13].

 

When the government began the privatisation of the Royal Mail in 2013 it was poorly managed, rushed, and cost the UK tax payer £180 million.This Assembly believes that the move to fully privatise the service not only represents a bad deal for tax payers but will also potentially reduce scrutiny and transparency in an organisation that has been serving the public interest since the early 1500s[14]. These concerns are not merely limited to the delivery of the Royal Mail’s core services, but are also relevant in respect of the availability of affordable housing in London, as the Royal Mail seeks to divest itself of land assets capable of delivering thousands of homes in the capital[15].

 

The London Assembly calls on the Mayor to defend London’s postal service and ensure Royal Mail’s land assets are used to deliver housing across all tenures in the capital by lobbying the government to conduct an open and transparent cost-benefit analysis of selling the remaining 15% stake in the Royal Mail.”

 

5.12  Upon being put to the vote, the revised motion in the name of Murad Qureshi AM, namely:

 

“The London Assembly is concerned that the quality of London’s universal postal service is under threat following the Chancellor Exchequer’s recent announcement that the Government is to sell its remaining stake in Royal Mail^[12].  Shortly after this announcement the Government sold half of its remaining 30 per cent share^[13].

 

This Assembly believes that the move to fully privatise the service not only represents a bad deal for tax payers but will also potentially reduce scrutiny and transparency in an organisation that has been serving the public interest since the early 1500s[14]. These concerns are not merely limited to the delivery of the Royal Mail’s core services, but are also relevant in respect of the availability of affordable housing in London, as the Royal Mail seeks to divest itself of land assets capable of delivering thousands of homes in the capital[15].

 

The London Assembly calls on the Mayor to defend London’s postal service and ensure Royal Mail’s land assets are used to deliver housing across all tenures in the capital by lobbying the government to conduct an open and transparent cost-benefit analysis of selling the remaining 15% stake in the Royal Mail.”

 

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

 

5.13  Stephen Knight AM moved and Tom Copley AM seconded the following motion:

 

“This Assembly notes the Mayor’s recent statement that the proposal to extend the Right to Buy to housing associations tenants “will only work for London if it delivers more homes - and more low-cost homes – [and] makes sure that the cash from the sale of any council homes stays firmly in London and is used to build more homes for Londoners” adding that he did not want to see London’s “great mixture of socioeconomic groups” displaced as a result of the policy.[16]

 

This Assembly further notes that the rate of replacement for council homes sold under the Right to Buy scheme since the the maximum discount was increased in 2012 has been closer to one in ten, despite a commitment to ensure that the receipts from every additional home sold would be used to fund its replacement on a one for one basis.[17]

 

This Assembly is furthered concerned that the way the policy is to be funded – through forcing local councils to sell off their most valuable properties – may result in many new council properties being sold off almost as soon as they are built, instead of being let to local residents in housing need.

 

This Assembly believes that the proposal to extend the Right to Buy to housing associations tenants in London risks undermining other efforts to increase the supply of new affordable homes across the capital.

 

This Assembly is concerned by the Mayor’s failure to respond to its motion – agreed at Mayor’s Question Time on 21 May 2015 – calling on him to commission an assessment of the implications of an extended Right to Buy for housing associations in London.[18]

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to provide an oral update to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity confirming whether or not he intends to commission an assessment of the implications of extending Right to Buy to Housing Association tenants in London, and if not, to provide a list of reasons for his decision. “

 

5.14  Upon being put to the vote, the motion in the name of Stephen Knight AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly notes the Mayor’s recent statement that the proposal to extend the Right to Buy to housing associations tenants “will only work for London if it delivers more homes - and more low-cost homes – [and] makes sure that the cash from the sale of any council homes stays firmly in London and is used to build more homes for Londoners” adding that he did not want to see London’s “great mixture of socioeconomic groups” displaced as a result of the policy.[16]

 

This Assembly further notes that the rate of replacement for council homes sold under the Right to Buy scheme since the the maximum discount was increased in 2012 has been closer to one in ten, despite a commitment to ensure that the receipts from every additional home sold would be used to fund its replacement on a one for one basis.[17]

 

This Assembly is furthered concerned that the way the policy is to be funded – through forcing local councils to sell off their most valuable properties – may result in many new council properties being sold off almost as soon as they are built, instead of being let to local residents in housing need.

 

This Assembly believes that the proposal to extend the Right to Buy to housing associations tenants in London risks undermining other efforts to increase the supply of new affordable homes across the capital.

 

This Assembly is concerned by the Mayor’s failure to respond to its motion – agreed at Mayor’s Question Time on 21 May 2015 – calling on him to commission an assessment of the implications of an extended Right to Buy for housing associations in London.[18]

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to provide an oral update to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity confirming whether or not he intends to commission an assessment of the implications of extending Right to Buy to Housing Association tenants in London, and if not, to provide a list of reasons for his decision. “

 

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