Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Question No - LEGACY LONDON - Londongovuk.rtf


									Subject: Questions to the Mayor
Report number: 5
Report to: London Assembly
Date: 25/01/06
Report of: Executive Director Of Secretariat

Breakdown of Policing Budget
Question No: 1 / 2006
Jenny Jones
From next year’s MPA budget, can you provide the approximate allocations for 1) counter
terrorism and security, 2) safer neighbourhood policing, 3) general territorial policing, 4)
serious crimes, 5) road safety and transport policing, 6) public order policing, 7) other
(please specify)?

A detailed service analysis of the MPS Budget for 2006/07 was included within my Consultation
Budget (see Section 2.3 on page 8) which does show budgets for the main business groups within
the MPS such as Territorial Policing, Specialist Crime, Special Operations etc. However, a
detailed analysis by the headings requested is not possible as many of them are not separately
identified within the overall budget.

In addition, the costs of support directorates such as Directorate of Information, Resources and
Human Resources are shown separately and are not apportioned to operational groups - which, of
course, would be needed if the budget were to be allocated across the requested (and similar)

The MPS continues to implement and refine its Activity Based Costing. A report entitled "MPS
Development of police Activity Based Costing (ABC): 2004-05 results" went to Finance
Committee on the 19th January which provides more of the activity analysis requested. A
relevant table from that report is shown attached as Appendix A.

Spending on Counter Terrorism
Question No: 2 / 2006
Jenny Jones
How much extra will be spent next year by the GLA Group on counter terrorism and
security? How will this be allocated in broad terms? How much of the total will be funded
by the government?

As at 23 January, unfortunately the Home Office have not yet confirmed the level of Counter
Terrorism grant that the MPA/MPS will receive for 2006/07. We have been informed that a new
"single pot" for Counter Terrorism is being created from three existing sources but, at that stage,
only one element of the new pot has been confirmed.

The estimate of £228m included within the draft budget equates to the sum currently being
received from the three separate funding sources. In addition, a sum of £187m for the MPS
special grant for international/ national/capital city functions has been included elsewhere in the

LDA and Aviation
Question No: 3 / 2006
Darren Johnson
How much has the LDA spent on projects related to the aviation industry in each of the
last five financial years? In the context of the disastrous impacts that a third runway would
have in terms of climate change emissions, noise, and air quality, is it appropriate for the
LDA to be funding a project (The Environmental Technologies Project with Brunel
University) ‘which may help overcome one of the barriers to further expansion’? In light of
your policies on climate change, will you divert money away from aviation towards more
sustainable industries in next year’s budget?

Between 2000/01 and 2004/5 the London Development Agency (LDA) spent a total of
£5,705,588 on projects related to the aviation industry. This included projects enabling people
from the Thames Gateway area to access job opportunities at Stansted Airport and providing
high quality Business Support services to mainly BME Micro Businesses in the Heathrow City
area. In the year to date the LDA has spent £578,915 on such projects relating to the aviation

Any strategy for increasing airport capacity must be environmentally sustainable in the longer
term. I believe that the negative environmental consequences outweigh the economic benefits put
forward for the expansion of Heathrow. I am therefore opposed to a third runway at the airport.

The LDA has not provided any funding to Brunel University or anyone else to provide
justification for such a runway. The Environmental Technologies Project that you refer to is a
feasibility study with Brunel University on the potential for creating a cluster of environmental
technology businesses at Heathrow City looking at issues such as waste treatment and pollution
control. It is not related to the airport itself.

In order to reduce CO2 emissions from Heathrow airport, one of the largest energy consumers in
London, my London Climate Change Agency is working with the BAA on the implementation of
cogeneration, trigeneration, renewable energy and low or zero emission ground transport
systems which may be delivered through the London Energy Services Company.

Spending on Sport
Question No: 4 / 2006
Jenny Jones
In your 03/04 budget £87,000 was spent on specifically on sport related initiatives, with
£67,000 going towards the London Grand Prix Event. Can you detail what money was
spent on sport related initiatives in 04/05 and how much money will be allocated for sport
related initiatives in your 05/06 and 06/07 budgets, excluding the Olympics?

GLA Expenditure for 2004/05 is as follows:

£27,200 on sport and social inclusion
£10,000 on older people and sport
£262,000 on the Kids Swim Free Programme

Total: £299,200

Planned GLA expenditure in 2005/06 breaks down as follows:

£10,000 on the Mayor’s Community Skating Programme
£10,000 on physical exercise and health
£20,000 on older people and sport
£25,000 on London Youth Games
£15,000 on the Big Dance health promotion
£7,000 on Bangladeshi Cricket Reception
£60,000 on the Grand Prix in London

Total: £147,000

Once programme budgets for next year have been confirmed, the allocation for sport will be
available but conversations are taking place with the English Cricket Board to develop
appropriate events for the touring teams from Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Motorbikes and Climate Change
Question No: 5 / 2006
Jenny Jones
Are you aware of the research led by Dr Ana-Marja Vasic of the Swiss Federal Laboratories
for Materials Testing & Research which has found that motorcycles emit 16 times the
amount of hydrocarbons produced by cars and three times as much carbon monoxide? Will
the evidence, that annual hydrocarbon emissions from the average powered two-wheeler in
urban traffic are up to 49 times higher than those from the average car, make you
reconsider introducing a reduced congestion charge for motorbikes?

I have not personally seen the research, we should not assume research undertaken elsewhere can
directly translate to London. However, particulate matter (PM) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
are the emissions considered most damaging to human health. Motorcycles travelling at average
London speeds in the Greater London area are very low emitters of these pollutants as a
proportion of road transport emissions.
It should be remembered that the primary objective of Congestion Charging is to reduce
congestion in Central London. As I stated in March 2005 powered two-wheelers do not
contribute significantly to congestion and as such they are exempt from the Charge. For this
reason I will not be considering removing the exemption for motorbikes.
Price Signals and Transport
Question No: 6 / 2006
Jenny Jones
Are you concerned that an overall decline in the cost of motoring since 1997, combined
with price rises for Londoners in rail, tube and bus fares, is sending a strong pricing signal
that cars are becoming a cheaper option than public transport? What can be done to
reverse, or counter, this pricing signal?

Between 2000 and 2004 car use in London has fallen from 44% to 41%. In addition, congestion
charging has given a clear signal encouraging reduced car use in the most congested parts of
London, and the western extension of congestion charging will further strengthen this.

Fares are only one element in the signal that public transport provides to Londoners. Just as
important are the ticketing system, where Oyster is a world leader, and the quality of service.

Central to the future will be the projects and initiatives set out in TfL’s Business Plan and
Investment Programme. These are all geared to improving the quality of public transport in
London, fares make a vital contribution to funding this programme.
Stratford High Street
Question No: 7 / 2006
Jenny Jones
What plans does TfL have to improve Stratford High Street for pedestrians and cyclists?
Do you agree that the re-development of Stratford in the run-up to the Olympics should
include measures to make Stratford more pedestrian-friendly?

Newham Council is the highway authority for Stratford High Street and TfL’s jurisdiction is
therefore limited. However, TfL would be delighted to work with the Council to seek
improvements in provision for pedestrians and cyclists that would not unduly prejudice network

To that end TfL’s Walking, Cycling and Accessibility team met with Newham (and neighbouring
boroughs) on 31 January. The aim was to determine and agree appropriate walking and cycling
enhancements, both in central Stratford and over the wider area, to ensure the delivery of a
sustainable Games and legacy.
LDA and Building Standards
Question No: 8 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Following your response to questions 1836/2005, 2031/2005, and 2377/2005, how do you
expect the policy in your Energy Strategy for all LDA developments to achieve ‘excellent’
or ‘very good’ BREEAM ratings to be evaluated if the LDA does not have a policy of
commissioning BREEAM assessments on all of its new developments?

I have instructed the LDA to implement the policy of commissioning BREEAM assessments on
all of its new developments.
Renewable Energy in GLA Buildings
Question No: 9 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Following your answer to question 2378/2005, as the target in your Energy Strategy for
100% renewable energy in GLA buildings by the end of 2005 appears to have been missed,
when do you expect for this target to be met?

As you know from my answer to question 2378/2005 all GLA buildings are supplied by green
electricity tariffs except the LDA and LFEPA.

I will ask the LDA and LFEPA to achieve this target by the end of financial year 2006/07.
LDA Exemplary Development
Question No: 10 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Following your answer to questions 1838/2005 and the LDA’s answer to question
587/2005, when do you expect an LDA exemplary low carbon development to be

This is a high priority, and I have asked my officers to work with the LDA to ensure delivery of an
exemplary low carbon development.

The LDA has committed to producing a feasibility study into this in 2006/07, and we hope work
will then commence as soon after as is practicable.
LDA’s Private Investment Commission and Sustainable Design
Question No: 11 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Following your answer to question 2380/2005 which confirmed that the LDA’s Private
Investment Commission has not addressed the issue of sustainable design and
construction, what are you doing to take forward proposal 22 of your Energy Strategy
(’The Mayor requests the London Development Agency to ensure that its Private
Investment Commission examines the delivery of sustainable design and construction, in
order to identify the barriers to and opportunities for increasing investment in sustainable
design, and identify to high-profile exemplary projects.’)?

The London Development Agency (LDA) is working to embed sustainable design and
construction principles in all its development activity. Sustainable design and construction is a
key consideration on all LDA major development projects including the Olympics and Crystal
Palace Park. An internal toolkit has been developed as a means of facilitating this. Over the next
few years the toolkit will be implemented on LDA owned sites as the development opportunities
arise and the LDA will also be promoting sustainable design and construction with their
development partners.

In terms of exemplary projects, over the next year the LDA will be identifying work required to
take forward a low carbon development and identify potential locations.

On behalf of the GLA family the LDA organises quarterly meetings of the “Developer Forum”
with a range of private developers, registered social landlords and other stakeholders to discuss
key issues of interest among the development community. We have the opportunity at future
meetings to take the issue of sustainable design and construction to the table.
LDA and Energy Saving
Question No: 12 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Following your answers to questions 1836/2005, 1838/2005, 2031/2005, 2377/2005,
2378/2005, and 2380/2005, are you concerned that LDA is not complying with the
policies in your Energy Strategy on environmental building standards
(BREEAM/Ecohomes assessments), green electricity, exemplary zero-carbon
developments and investment in sustainable design? Will you commission a review of
functional bodies’ compliance with your Energy Strategy?

Climate change is obviously becoming an increasingly important priority, and I will ask my
officers to prioritise working with the LDA to achieve the policies in the Energy Strategy.

I do not propose to commission a review of Functional Bodies’ compliance with the Energy
Strategy, although the Assembly Environment Committee may wish to do this.
Olympics and Food
Question No: 13 / 2006
Jenny Jones
Will the procurement strategy for the ODA contracts cover food, given the large amount
of food that will be consumed during the construction phase and the environmental impact
of that volume of food?

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) procurement strategy will apply to everything the ODA
procures, and as far as possible to supplies and services procured by subcontractors.
Research on Olympics Procurement
Question No: 14 / 2006
Jenny Jones
What studies are being conducted on the most sustainable ways to source energy, water,
food, and building materials, and to deal with waste in relation to the Olympics during the
construction, Games and legacy phases? Do you agree that such studies are necessary to
inform a sustainable procurement process for the Olympics and achieve ambitious
sustainability targets?

The interim Olympic Delivery Authority is currently developing a set of sustainable development
performance standards which will apply to the Olympic Park development, which includes
amongst other things; energy, waste, water, and the use of materials, drawing on good practice
and undertaking research where appropriate. This work forms part of the development of the
ODA’s Sustainable Development Strategy, one of the strategies required to be developed prior to
the commencement of development as part of the planning permission. ODA procurement will be
in accordance with these standards, when they are agreed.
Air Quality and Olympics Construction
Question No: 15 / 2006
Jenny Jones
What measures will be in place to mitigate the deterioration of air quality likely to result
from the Olympics construction and demolition phase? Are you concerned by the recent
‘Olympic Games Impact Study’, which suggested that the air quality impact in the Lower
Lea Valley would be ‘very negative’?

Environmental considerations have been an important factor in considering the design,
construction and operation of the Olympic Park. Environmental impact will be monitored
through the development of the park and the delivery of the Games. Dust control and air
pollution are two key issues that will be addressed through the Code of Construction Practice –
one of 40 strategies that must be submitted to the planning authority before work begins on site.
The interim ODA is currently evaluating how it may assure the highest standards of
environmental management (including health, safety and environmental controls) during the
construction works. To this end, it is actively developing arrangements for pre-qualification,
award of contracts and contract monitoring to ensure that, amongst other things, dust and
emission control is properly addressed. Best Practice Guidance on reducing emissions of dust and
particulates from construction and demolition sites for use by London boroughs and developers,
as detailed in a forthcoming GLA/ALG consultation, will be adopted for the Olympic
Construction Waste and Olympics
Question No: 16 / 2006
Darren Johnson
What safeguards are you putting in place to ensure construction waste from the Olympics
and Stratford City development is not disposed of on greenbelt land in and around

Waste is an important consideration in the development of the Olympic Park site. The Olympic
Park planning permission states that the development cannot be commenced until a Waste
Management Framework (which is to be based on the principles of ‘sustainable resources use’)
which forms part of the Sustainable Development Strategy has been approved by the Local
Planning Authorities. The interim Olympic Delivery Authority and London Development
Agency are currently looking at measures which will reduce the overall amount of waste
generated. Where waste is transported off site, it will be disposed of at an appropriate licensed
site (where licenses are issued by the Environment Agency).
Cycle Barriers at Ravensbury Park
Question No: 17 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Merton Council has recently installed barriers at either end of Ravensbury Park making it
impossible to negotiate by cycle without getting off. Given that this cycle route is marked
on the TfL cycle map will you ask TfL officers to intervene to try and resolve the situation
and make the route fully accessible to cyclists?

I have asked TfL to take up this issue with LB Merton.
Biggin Hill Airport
Question No: 18 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Will you join with MPs, MEPs, Assembly members, councillors, and Bromley residents in
welcoming the report ‘The case for the Community’, prepared by Flightpath, the alliance
of residents associations opposed to additional development at Biggin Hill Airport?

The ‘Case for the Community’ report drafted by Flightpath was a well researched and detailed
analysis of the issues raised in the Biggin Hill Masterplan.

As I stated in 0712/2005 many of the issues raised in the masterplan document relate to the lease
between that landowners, Bromley Council and the operator. This is not a matter for my
Question No: 19 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Will you ensure TfL work jointly with Islington Council in making full use of their
statutory powers to deal with flyposting on the Northern Line ventilation shaft at
Pentonville Rd N1/Weston Rise WC1 junction and the Public Carriage Office at 15
Penton Street N1?

TfL is developing proposals for cladding to the Northern Line ventilation shaft on the City Road
/ Goswell Road island as part of a package of streetscape improvements, planned for summer
2006. It is proposed to incorporate murals on the cladding, subject to further discussions with
Islington Council and local stakeholders. The cladding will be coated with an anti flyposting

By the end of February, the hoarding adjacent to the Public Carriage Office’s entrance will be
removed and replaced with a hoarding to which fly-posters cannot be fixed.

TfL recognize the detrimental effect that flyposting can have and has provided anti flyposting
treatment on street furniture in a number of areas. However, TfL’s powers under the Highways
Act are limited. Local authorities have wider powers and TfL is working closely with them to
encourage greater activity in pursuing offenders.
Design and Construction Standards
Question No: 20 / 2006
Darren Johnson
In the response to question number 580/2005 (FBQT 7 December 2005), the LDA
highlighted the role of your forthcoming Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for
Sustainable Design and Construction in helping to ensure that new housing in the Thames
Gateway meets sustainability criteria. However, while I recognise the importance of
sustainable design and construction, the question, asked how the quality of design and
construction - which is a substantially wider issue - will be improved and upheld. What
mechanisms, therefore, are in place to ensure that the London Thames Gateway
Development Corporation and other local planning authorities in the wider Thames
Gateway region will insist on high standards of design and construction other than in
respect of sustainability criteria? Are you confident that LTGDC has the resources and
expertise to insist on these standards even under threat of developer appeal?

My London Plan sets good design as central to all its objectives and the need for good design is
rooted firmly in the plan's policies. I have policies that set out principles to be followed to achieve
high quality design for London and this policy (4B.1) states that these principles should be used in
assessing planning applications, drawing up planning frameworks and UDP (now LDD) policies.
Policy 4B.2 specifically seeks to promote world-class design and also the involvement of the GLA
Architecture and Urbanism Unit (AUU). The AUU are working closely with the Development
Corporation and the local authorities to achieve high standards of design and construction on
developments across the Gateway. My London Plan policies are also used to assess strategic
applications referred to me so I have in place a strong strategic policy framework to support
achieving high quality design. There is a general shortage of planning officers across London, the
Development Corporation is a new organisation and it is too early to say what effect this will
Olympics and Draft Procurement Principles
Question No: 21 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Which London stakeholders have been consulted on the draft procurement principles and
strategy being developed for the Olympics? Has London Remade been consulted?

I published the procurement principles document in September last year. Since then, it has been
sent to a large number of organisations who have expressed interest, including London Remade,
some of which have submitted comments.
Bird Flu
Question No: 22 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Can you update us on your plans to deal with the threat of bird flu?
Defra has reviewed its overall risk assessment of the threat posed by highly pathogenic Avian
Influenza. In light of the recent cases in China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, Croatia
and Romania it concludes that there is a high risk of further global dispersion. It assesses the risk
to the UK as increased but still low.

The GLA is continuing to work with London Resilience to monitor, assess and respond to the
risks posed by current outbreaks in the Far East and elsewhere.

To address the risk of the bird flu virus mutating into a form that would result in
human-to-human transmission I provided an update to the Assembly on the status of the GLA
group pandemic flu response plan on 14 December. The plan is now in the process of being
submitted to the functional bodies and MPS for formal ratification. We will provide a copy of the
plan to BMAC for noting.

The plan complements the business continuity plans - in place in the GLA, the MPS and each of
the FBs - that detail how essential services will be maintained in the event of a pandemic.

International Day of Homophobia
Question No: 23 / 2006
Darren Johnson
What plans have you got for City Hall to mark International Day of Homophobia on May

I supported the first International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) in May 2005 by issuing a
message of support that was distributed widely. My officers are currently exploring options for
further involvement this year. I want London to have zero tolerance of homophobic hate crime
and support measures to eradicate homophobia including supporting Stonewall’s Education For
All campaign to tackle the problem of endemic homophobic bullying in London’s schools through
the production of a teaching resource.
New Year’s Message
Question No: 24 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Do you feel that your 45-second New Year’s message playing on a continuous loop for over
two hours at Parliament Square enhanced the enjoyment of the crowds gathered to
celebrate the New Year?

The Screen on Parliament Square is erected to show the hour-long BBC programme between
11.30 and 12.30 which includes live uninterrupted coverage of the London Fireworks. Outside of
this time it is used to broadcast safety and travel messages to the public and, this year, a
four-minute promotional video from Visit London focussing on our famous visitor attractions.
This did not include a message from myself
Vauxhall Cross
Question No: 25 / 2006
Jenny Jones
Can you provide the road casualty figures for Vauxhall Cross in the three years before the
current road lay out was put in place, and for the period since the new layout has been
operating? Can you give specific figures for cyclists? Are you convinced that the new
layout is safer?
My Adviser, Mark Watts, has looked into this matter and would be happy to discuss this with you
Sporting Facilities
Question No: 26 / 2006
Jenny Jones
As part of your review of the London Plan, will you give clear planning guidance requiring
boroughs to allocate land specifically for sporting facilities in areas of deficiency?

The London Plan (Policy 3D.5) already makes clear that “the Mayor will work with strategic
partners to promote and develop sporting facilities ….. in reviewing UDPs, boroughs should
identify sites for a range of sports facilities to meet local, sub regional and wider needs. In
considering proposals for sports facilities, boroughs should ensure that:
-“a sequential approach is applied”
-“sites have good access by public transport, cycling and walking or improved access is planned”
-“facilities are accessible to all sections of the community, including disable people”
-“new provision is focused on areas with existing deficiencies in facilities”
-“the multiple use of facilities is encouraged including those of schools and commercial

As a pan London policy this provides adequate broad strategic guidance. However, the Statement
of Intent for review of the London Plan does indicate that it needs refinement to take account of
provision associated with the Olympic and Paralympic games. It is hoped to produce Best
Practice Guidance on sports provision which will provide more specific detail on implementation
of policy.
Sporting Facilities
Question No: 27 / 2006
Jenny Jones
As part of your review of the London Plan, will you give clear planning guidance requiring
boroughs to provide at least one swimming facility per 20,000 residents and at least one
athletics facility per 30,000 residents?

London Plan policy 3D.5 (see response to MQT 26/2006) provides a broader and more locally
sensitive strategic policy direction than the approach you suggest. However, your suggested
‘standards’ based approach will inform preparation of Best Practice Guidance on sports provision.
Economic Benefit of Physical Activity
Question No: 28 / 2006
Jenny Jones
Will you agree to commission work to develop an economic model to demonstrate the
benefits to the public purse, through reduced need for health care and increased
educational achievement, of people taking regular exercise? Would you then use this
model to lobby central government and boroughs to provide more funds for local sports

I would be reluctant to commission any new research in this area because economic modelling has
already been undertaken.

For example, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland developed a health economics model
looking specifically at the cost benefits of physical activity. The model projected substantial direct
savings to the NHS as well as associated economic benefits, based on relatively conservative
estimates of reductions in disease levels due to increase physical activity.

In addition, a report by the Chief Medical Officer has calculated that physical inactivity costs the
UK economy £8.2bn every year of which £1.7bn in NHS costs, £5.4bn is the cost of absence
from work and £1bn is lost through early mortality.

So the economic case for increased physical activity among the general population is well

I will look to discuss this issue further in my regular meetings with the DH and London NHS, in
particular, how the ‘Delivering Choosing Health’ agenda can engage with the London boroughs
and other agencies to increase access to, and take-up of, sports and leisure opportunities in the
London Green Lifestyle Show
Question No: 29 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Why is the London Green Lifestyle Show held last year not being repeated?

Last year’s London Green Lifestyle Show was one of a number of events held in London
Sustainability Weeks 2005. The Show was successful but did not attract private sector
sponsorship, which makes it difficult to sustain. My officers are currently considering other ways
to promote the green lifestyle message this year, including supporting some of the many similar
local events.
Knee Hill
Question No: 30 / 2006
Darren Johnson
Are you concerned that the extra traffic generated by the proposed Thames Gateway
Bridge is going to cause irrevocable environmental damage to the ancient woodlands
bordering Knee Hill? Will you give a personal commitment that Transport for London will
not fund any proposal to increase capacity at Knee Hill, as this will increase demand for
vehicles wanting to travel between the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge and the A2
through what is a residential area?

The Environmental Statement (ES), submitted with the Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB)
planning application, demonstrates no worsening of air quality or increase in noise at Lesnes
Abbey Woods, Bostall Woods and Bostall Heath due to TGB.

The widening of Knee Hill is not part of TfL’s proposal for the TGB. The recently updated traffic
modelling and revised tolling proposals show that junctions on Knee Hill would operate
acceptably with TGB.
Winter Warmth Campaign
Question No: 31 / 2006
Darren Johnson
How much, on average, would a pensioner be expected to pay towards central heating or
insulation after all relevant grants have been taken into account? What assistance is
provided to older people in applying for grants or dealing with the practicalities of having
work done to their homes (e.g. the need to clear lofts before insulation is installed)?

All pensioners over 70 are entitled to free loft and cavity wall insulation under the Heatstreets
scheme. Pensioners on pension credit can also get free insulation from utility suppliers.
Remaining pensioners would have to contribute from £75, depending on circumstances.

The Warm Front scheme installs up to £2700 of heating measures (gas) for pensioners. Some
boroughs run their own schemes that are more generous.

All Londoners can get free and impartial help applying for schemes and grants from their local
energy Efficiency Advice Centre.

Grant schemes are unlikely to clear lofts.
Aldwych Gyratory
Question No: 32 / 2006
Jenny Jones
Aldwych gyratory is extremely unpleasant for cyclists and pedestrians to cross. In addition
it lacks any bus priority measures. Will TfL fund a study and scheme to improve Aldwych
for pedestrians, cyclists and buses?

The Aldwych Gyratory comprises roads that are in their entirety the responsibility of
Westminster City Council. Through the London Bus Priority Network (LBPN), TfL funded in
2003/4 a study of the scope for improvements in the operation of the gyratory. Proposals
included provision of a contra-flow bus lane and improvements in streetscape and pedestrian
facilities. Opportunities for improvements for cyclists are being addressed in the on-going
development of the scheme. The Council has yet to submit a bid for BSP funding but is
understood to be developing a business case for a scheme. TfL will consider the scheme on its
merit in the context of competing demands for available funds.
Cross River Tram
Question No: 33 / 2006
Jenny Jones
What consideration has been given to the Cross River Tram re-using the old tram tunnels
at Aldwych?

London Transport Planning did carry out some initial investigations into the idea in the mid
1990s but found the Kingsway tram tunnel to be technically unsuitable for modern light rail
vehicles. TfL is promoting an accessible transport scheme and sees no obvious benefit in moving
a surface transport scheme underground for a few hundred metres where people can neither see it
nor access it easily.
Helicopter Pollution
Question No: 34 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
How many advertising helicopter flights are taking place in London in a typical month?
Will you make representations to the CAA to have them banned?

The Civil Aviation Authority does not keep figures on the number of advertising helicopter
flights. There is currently one operator authorised, on safety grounds, to carry a large advertising
banner. As I have said (MQ1142/2005), I think that helicopter flights solely for advertising
should need special permission, with full account taken of environmental impacts. New powers, or
a reinterpretation of current understanding of the law, would be needed. I will make
representations to the Government to look at the legal position, including the feasibility of an
outright ban.
Drug Dealing
Question No: 35 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
What progress are the police making in tackling drug dealing in Lambeth?

I have been informed that the MPS in Lambeth are running an operation entitled ‘No Deal’ which
targets drug dealing in and around Brixton Town Centre.
‘No Deal’ is a direct response to local community demands to address drug dealing and associated
street crime as well as anti social behavior. The MPS will introduce a positive arrest policy for
drug possession, including cannabis, in the Town Centre area. Officers will use charges, cautions,
warnings or no further action. Lambeth Council and the CPS support this activity. A public
meeting was held at Lambeth Town Hall recently, which gave overwhelming support for this
planned activity. Inspector Sean Martell will run the operation. Further information can be
obtained from Supt Stuart Low. ‘No Deal’ is ongoing and has been running since 12th December
2005. The most recent figures are as follows:
306 Stop and Searches
172 Stop and Accounts
104 Arrests of which, 49 have been for Possession Class A/ Class C.
The MPS are continuing with crack house raids and closures outside of ‘No Deal’ and have to date
conducted 78 Crack raids in the Borough.
Percentage Increases in Tube Fares
Question No: 36 / 2006
John Biggs
What are the percentage increases in child weekly, monthly and annual tube season tickets
for zones 1-2, Zones 1-3, zones 1-4, zones 1-5 and zones 1-6 and can you justify this?

The Table below shows child weekly Travelcard prices in 2005; child weekly prices in 2006; the
cost of 10 child Oyster fares in 2006; and the percentage increases in each case.

The percentage increases for monthly tickets are as for weeklies. There are no annual child

From this January, child fares on the Tube have generally moved to a consistent, half fare basis.

With the introduction of child Oyster fares on the Tube at half the adult rate, the cost of travel to
school by the Tube should go down in most cases – as column (6) below shows.

                  Weekly Travelcard         Child Oyster fares       Percentage changes
                  2005       2006            One        Ten         (2) vs (1)   (4) vs (1)
                    (1)        (2)           (3)         (4)            (5)         (6)
                    £          £               p          £
 Zone 1            7.30      11.10            70        7.00           +52           -4
 Zone 1-2          8.60      11.10           100       10.00           +29          +16
 Zone 1-3         11.50      13.00           100       10.00           +13          -13
 Zone 1-4         14.20      15.80           100       10.00           +11          -30
 Zone 1-5         15.70      18.90           100       10.00           +20          -36
 Zone 1-6         17.20      20.50           100       10.00           +19          -42
 Zone 2-3          6.50       7.00            50        5.00           +8           -23
 Zone 2-4          8.80       9.20            90        9.00           +5           +2
 Zone 2-5         11.00      11.10            90        9.00           +1           -18
 Zone 2-6         12.60      13.60            90        9.00           +8           -29

Range of Travel Tickets
Question No: 37 / 2006
John Biggs
Do you understand that many Londoners are still confused by the range of travel tickets
available in London?
The bus fare structure is now very simple. I agree that further simplifying travel tickets for the
Tube and the trains would have benefits.

Emerging sales trends since the January fare changes indicate that more and more users are
getting the Oyster message and achieving better value as a result.

The continuing refusal of the Train Operators to accept Oyster is adding an unnecessary and
unjustified layer of confusion to the ticketing system. I would urge all Londoners to join with me
in making it clear to the Train Operators that this is totally unacceptable.
Additional Bus Service
Question No: 38 / 2006
John Biggs
Do you accept that many of my constituents in Tower Hamlets and Newham would like to
see a local bus service running alongside the trunk 25 route between Aldgate and
Stratford? What prospect is there of such a service being introduced?

TfL is aware of this proposal and has reviewed it. TfL found that because running an extra route
between Aldgate and Stratford would not create any new links on the network it created very
little benefit for the substantial cost of providing a parallel service. TfL believes that overall,
route 25 provides sufficient capacity for the existing demand, but is investigating complaints
regarding crowding on the route 25 after the evening peak period.
HM Customs
Question No: 39 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
I understand that HM Revenue and Customs is a law enforcement agency, but that despite
this, vehicles carrying out enforcement actions are subject to the congestion charge? Has
this situation been reviewed and are you content that it is reasonable to charge such civil
service vehicles?

HM Customs vehicles, like all Governmental vehicles, are subject to the Congestion Charge.
There is an exemption for emergency service vehicles based on DVLA tax categories, however,
HM Customs vehicles do not fall into this category.

Due to the covert nature of many of their vehicles, HM Customs chose to pay the charge
anonymously rather than have a fleet account. Therefore, they are unable to take advantage of the
discounted fleet rate.

Like all aspects of the Congestion Charge, discounts and exemptions are kept under constant
review, and I will ask TfL to look into this specific issue.
Southwark Disablement Association
Question No: 40 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
Patrick Horan of the Southwark Disablement Association has asked me to ask you the
following question on his behalf:
“TfL gives a fantastic statistic of buses leaving the garage with a malfunctioning ramp but
this is not true, I have had to wait in the rain and cold up to 90 mins for a functioning ramp
bus to come along, the buses in question are the 381 and 1, but I understand this is a
prevalent problem across the network, I am deeply embarrassed as I campaigned
vigorously against the ¿save the Routemaster Campaign¿ and for disabled users to use
mainstream buses instead of door 2 door transport. Mr Mayor, when are we going to get a
ramp that functions 100% of the time or at least 90%”

Mr Horan’s support for our efforts to ensure that all London buses are low-floor and wheelchair
accessible is much appreciated. I am pleased that this was achieved on time at the end of 2005. I
recognise there are instances where ramps have failed, causing considerable inconvenience to the
passengers concerned.

The performance of ramps has significantly improved over the past few years, for example a
recent audit of wheelchair ramps showed that out of 2,131 buses checked, only 34 had faulty
ramps. London Buses has instructed operators that no buses will leave their garage with a
defective ramp. However, instances do occur when a ramp fails while in service and this is
regrettable. Ramp manufacturers and operators are trying to minimise this situation.

London Buses has been in touch with Patrick Horan to apologise for his experiences when using
buses and has offered to spend an afternoon travelling around with him to understand his
Pedestrian Crossing Facilities - Thurlow Park Road
Question No: 41 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
Parents have been contacting me regarding the lack of a pelican crossing on the A205 at
the junction of Elmcourt and Lovelace Rd. There is obviously real fear amongst parents
regarding the safety of their children crossing the zebra to get to school. When will TfL
upgrade this crossing to make it safer?

I am aware of local concerns over road safety on the A205, Thurlow Park Road at the zebra
crossing located close to Elmcourt Road and Lovelace Road. In my response to Roger Evans
(2421/2005) on this subject, I said that interrogation of TfL’s records shows that at the junction
of Thurlow Park Road/Lovelace Road there were no pedestrian casualties on the crossing up to
the end of the most recent, three year reporting period. It is, however, acknowledged that there
has been a more recent pedestrian casualty.

TfL, together with its borough partners, has an impressive record of reducing road casualties and
will continue to prioritise activities to maximise their effectiveness in casualty reduction.

Given the low accident record, conversion of the zebra crossing to a pelican would not suggest a
potential for casualty reduction. However, such conversions can be considered also if there is a
need to create a better balance between pedestrian and vehicular movement, or to provide a sense
of greater security for those wishing to cross. Grounds for providing or upgrading controlled
crossings also include community severance. I have asked TfL to ensure that these factors, and
particularly the presence of schools, are considered in relation to the crossings on Thurlow Park
Road, and that any upgrading of the crossing be appropriately programmed in relation to
competing priorities on its constrained resources.

TfL advise me that resources to undertake formal assessments have since been allocated, with a
view to completing the assessments during the Spring.
Pedestrian Crossing in West Norwood
Question No: 42 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
I have been in correspondence with TfL about the need for a pedestrian crossing across
Norwood Rd (at the York Hill/ Lancaster Ave junction). However as this is a Lambeth
Council Rd TfL were unable to act without an approach from Lambeth. Lambeth
requested assistance in April and have had their first proposal turned down because it
would slow down the movement of buses along the busy bus lane. What assistance can TfL
render to Lambeth to ensure that there is both a safe pedestrian crossing at this point - and
that buses will not be slowed?

TfL reviewed LB Lambeth’s proposals for Norwood Road in the context of the Traffic
Management Act 2004, which places a requirement on all highway authorities to ‘keep traffic
moving’. The review showed that it was not possible to provide the pedestrian facility without
imposing significant delay, particularly on bus passengers.

Following this review, TfL worked closely with Lambeth to develop a scheme that would provide
the crossing without undue negative impacts for other road users. Lambeth developed and
submitted a proposal that included a northbound bus lane that would mitigate the effects of the
crossing. TfL agreed in principle to providing funding to allow the bus lane to be introduced.
Sadly, Lambeth members resolved ‘to refuse to endorse’ the proposal developed by Lambeth

Lambeth has very recently submitted a new proposal which TfL will review.
Cross River Tram
Question No: 43 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
I am pleased to see the CRT in the TfL five year business plan. When will likely affected
local businesses and churches and others in Peckham be contacted regarding the possible
relocation issues.

The route for CRT through Peckham has not yet been determined, however,. options are
currently being identified for detailed consideration. Formal consultation on route options will
be undertaken in the autumn this year to allow a single alignment to be selected and safeguarded
by the boroughs.

The Southwark Unitary Development Plan incorporates a proposed site for a tram depot in
Peckham and I am aware of the sensitivities of this site. This proposal was the subject of a public
inquiry which finished in July 2005 and the Inspector's report into the inquiry is due shortly. The
siting of the depot will depend on the approved version of the Southwark UDP and public
consultation on the site proposals. Notwithstanding this, where properties might be affected by
any proposed depot site, TfL will work with the borough to listen to views of local people who
live or work nearby. TfL is currently seeking to identify potentially affected properties in this
area so this engagement can take place.

CRT will play a crucial role in supporting regeneration in both Lambeth and Southwark,
particularly in areas such as Peckham which are not well served by public transport.
Croydon Tramlink
Question No: 44 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
I am delighted to see the commitment to pursue the extension of the Croydon Tramlink to
Crystal Palace station and park. However, the proposed branch to Streatham is given scant
mention. What is the realistic prospect of progress on an A23 arm of Croydon tramlink,
and when will this proposal come back on TfL’s agenda?

Given the need to prioritise use of its resources, TfL is not able to actively develop the Streatham
extension at the present time. However, this extension will be kept under review. Should further
funding become available we would be keen to develop it further.
Bullsmoor Lane Bus Lane
Question No: 45 / 2006
Joanne McCartney
Works to the Holmesdale Tunnel on the M25 is likely to cause major traffic disruption to
residents in Enfield. Will TfL be willing to suspend the operation of the bus lane in
Bullsmoor Lane in order to assist traffic flow?

Transport for London and Enfield Council are working together with the Highways Agency to
understand the likely impacts of the works to the Holmesdale Tunnel and to consider appropriate
mitigation measures.

Bullsmoor Lane is the responsibility of Enfield Council as highway authority and any decision to
suspend the bus lane would be theirs, but since it is immediately adjacent to the Transport for
London Road Network and the Strategic Road Network, TfL would have to approve any such
proposal. TfL will look carefully at the relative merits of any proposal Enfield might put forward
and work with the Council towards an optimal outcome.

In principle, I have to say it would be a disappointment to suspend a bus lane in the face of
increasing congestion as it is at such times that bus priority is most needed. Buses are a
particularly efficient mode and, unlike the private motorist, bus drivers cannot alter their routes
when they encounter traffic queues. Congestion affects bus performance and reliability for
passengers throughout the route.
Archway Road Fencing
Question No: 46 / 2006
Joanne McCartney
What is the current situation with regards to your review of the fence along the Archway
Road, outside Highgate tube station in Haringey?

The review of the fence has been completed as stated in response to MQT 1784/2005 in
September 2005.

On the basis of a review of all the evidence provided, I consider that in the short to medium term
the benefits of retaining the fence in terms of noise reduction outweigh the disbenefits. However,
London Underground are working towards finding the best solution for the longer term.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams in Enfield
Question No: 47 / 2006
Joanne McCartney
When can every neighbourhood in Enfield expect to have a safer neighbourhood team?

As I announced on January 10 2006, all remaining wards in London will receive their Safer
Neighbourhoods (SN) team by the end April 2006 - a full two years ahead of schedule.

All of London's 625 neighbourhoods will have live SN teams by 3 April 2006, subject to the
budget confirmation in mid-February. All new teams will comprise four officers in the first
instance, rising to the full component of 6 PCSOs/police officers by the end of March 2007.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams in Haringey
Question No: 48 / 2006
Joanne McCartney
When can every neighbourhood in Haringey expect to have a safer neighbourhood team?
As I announced on January 10 2006, all remaining wards in London will receive their Safer
Neighbourhoods (SN) team by the end April 2006 - a full two years ahead of schedule.

All of London's 625 neighbourhoods will have live SN teams by 3 April 2006, subject to the
budget confirmation in mid-February. All new teams will comprise four officers in the first
instance, rising to the full component of 6 PCSOs/police officers by the end of March 2007.
Free Bus Travel in Tower Hamlets
Question No: 49 / 2006
John Biggs
What percentage of 11-15 year olds have applied for free bus travel in Tower Hamlets and
are you satisfied that enough has been done to ensure that uptake is on par with the
London average? If not, what further steps are going to be taken?

Only 14 and 15 year olds need a Child Oyster photocard to get free bus travel. However, younger
children do need to apply if they wish to use Oyster pay as you go fares on the Tube or buy a
Travelcard season.

TfL has now issued nearly 150,000 cards to 14 and 15 year olds – a take up rate of more than 80%
across the whole of London. Over 80,000 cards have been issued to younger children.

A market research omnibus survey carried out in December indicated that:

      Over 95% of parents are aware of the free travel concession;

      Take up shows no variation by social class or ethnicity.

Taking the wider 11-15 year old age group as a whole, take up in Tower Hamlets at end 2005 was
35% compared with the 51% for London as a whole.

The main factor affecting take up seems to have been the willingness of local schools to get
involved in the scheme and distribute leaflets and application forms to pupils.

In Tower Hamlets only 10 schools out of 17 participated initially, compared to an overall rate of
over 80%. TfL is now working with the Schools’ Co-ordinator in Tower Hamlets, to improve
awareness of the scheme amongst parents.

Feedback from this initiative and the results of other recent TfL research will determine what
further steps are taken in other areas where take up has been comparatively low.
Free Bus Travel in Barking and Dagenham
Question No: 50 / 2006
John Biggs
What percentage of 11-15 year olds have applied for free bus travel in Barking and
Dagenham and are you satisfied that enough has been done to ensure that uptake is on par
with the London average? If not, what further steps are going to be taken?
Please refer to my answer to 49/2006.
Free Bus Travel in Newham
Question No: 51 / 2006
John Biggs
What percentage of 11-15 year olds have applied for free bus travel in Newham and are you
satisfied that enough has been done to ensure that uptake is on par with the London
average? If not, what further steps are going to be taken?

Please refer to my answer to 49/2006.
Body Scanners on the Tube Network
Question No: 52 / 2006
John Biggs
Have clear guidelines been established for the use of body scanners on the tube network?
Under whose jurisdiction will this be?

The Secretary of State has announced an intention to test security equipment within the rail
environment to assist with evaluating whether, and how, it might play a role in the future.

A trial is already underway on the Heathrow Express system at Paddington under the
jurisdiction of the Department for Transport. However, before any trials commence on LU, clear
guidelines for use will be agreed.
Oyster Integration Target
Question No: 53 / 2006
John Biggs
What are your targets for TOC Oyster integration during 2006-7?

Assuming TfL assumes control of the Silverlink Metro service, I would expect Oyster Pay As
You Go to be accepted on these services in 2007. During 2006-7 I expect all other train operators
to accept that their customers want full access to Oyster, including Pay As You Go, and to place
orders for equipment that allow this to take place. I also expect one or more train operators to
begin trialling Oyster Pay As You Go on routes involving gated stations that already have
Oyster readers. It would also be welcome if train operators took steps to install Oyster retail
facilities at all rail stations in Greater London.
I wish to make clear that I have no intention to pay train operators to do this as it is in their
financial interest to adopt Oyster. TfL has already spent millions of pounds providing train
operators with card readers at gates, hand-held card readers for train crews and revenue
protection staff, Oyster retailing devices that integrate with national rail ticket machines and
training and consulting services. TfL continues to share its smart card ticketing expertise freely
with the train operators.
In 2004 TfL offered to finance the £25 million investment required to allow Oyster to be
accepted by the end of 2006 at all rail stations in Greater London. TfL was willing to accept
re-payment over five years. The train operators refused and instead are seeking a grant of £60
million or more for a smart card-based system that would solve revenue control problems that
have been tolerated for decades. In other words, even though train operators have taken little or
no action to tackle fare evasion or provide customers with up-to-date ticketing systems, they hope
to pay nothing for systems that will bestow significant financial rewards.
Extension of Barking - Gospel Oak Line
Question No: 54 / 2006
John Biggs
Would you support the idea of extending Barking-Gospel Oak trains to Rainham?

As part of the development of its longer-term strategy for London’s National Rail network, TfL
has been undertaking a series of studies into future options for a number of routes.
These studies include the Gospel Oak to Barking service and its possible extension to Rainham or
I support the idea of service enhancements to meet demand but more work will need to be done on
this proposal before any commitment can be given to the development of such services.
Wind Turbines
Question No: 55 / 2006
John Biggs
Which areas of London are appropriate locations for free-standing wind turbines?
The London Energy Partnership, which we set up to bring together a range of sectors and
organisations across London to deliver energy action effectively, has been working on a Wind
and Biomass Study.

The study investigates the potential for non-building integrated wind and biomass plants in
London, and identifies sites that are suitable for wind turbines. It will produce illustrated GIS
maps and a set of guidelines detailing what renders a site suitable for installing a wind turbine in

The study will be made public later this quarter on the LEP website, at
Energy Supplies for London
Question No: 56 / 2006
John Biggs
Given the recent scare over Russian gas supplies what role does your office play in
ensuring secure energy supplies for London?

UK gas supplies were not affected by the recent problems of supply capacity to Europe from

However, my Energy Strategy recognises the link between addressing climate change and
improving security of supply. Maximising energy efficiency and increasing the amount of local,
decentralised generation from renewable sources and CHP, reduces carbon emissions as well as
improves security of supply.

I am implementing this via my Planning Decisions Unit, the London Energy Partnership,
London Hydrogen Partnership, London Climate Change Agency and the Functional Bodies.
Support for the Co-op and Social Enterprises
Question No: 57 / 2006
John Biggs
What support has the wider GLA given to a. Co-ops and b. Social enterprises in the past
five years?

My Economic Development Strategy (EDS) recognises that the Third Sector (including social
enterprises and co-operatives) is an important sector of the economy, as an employer and as a
partner in delivering the EDS. Over the past five years the London Development Agency (LDA)
has delivered substantial support to the Third Sector through funding the London Social
Economy Task Force; pan-London business support via Social Enterprise London; dedicated
support for enterprises in Objective 2 areas and a major loans scheme for social enterprises. The
LDA is also working closely with social enterprise support organisations in taking forward its
plans for the future of business support.
The Big Brother House and George Galloway
Question No: 58 / 2006
John Biggs
Would you enter the Big Brother House? Do you agree that George Galloway’s
incarceration in the house has fulfilled a useful role for his constituents and if so what was

No and No.
Bird Flu
Question No: 59 / 2006
John Biggs
How well prepared is London now for any incidence of bird flu? Do plans need to be
revisited in the light of recent developments?

Defra has reviewed its overall risk assessment of the threat posed by highly pathogenic Avian
Influenza. In light of the recent cases in China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, Croatia
and Romania it concludes that there is a high risk of further global dispersion. It assesses the risk
to the UK as increased but still low .
The GLA is continuing to work with London Resilience to monitor, assess and respond to the
risks posed by current outbreaks in the Far East and elsewhere.

To address the risk of the bird flu virus mutating into a form that would result in
human-to-human transmission I provided an update to the Assembly on the status of the GLA
group pandemic flu response plan on 14 December. The plan is now in the process of being
submitted to the functional bodies and MPS for formal ratification. We will provide a copy of the
plan to BMAC for noting

The plan complements the business continuity plans - in place in the GLA, the MPS and each of
the FBs - that detail how essential services will be maintained in the event of a pandemic.

Loud Music Using Mobile Phones on Buses
Question No: 60 / 2006
Valerie Shawcross
Are there any measures in place to limit the use of people playing loud music using mobile
phones on buses? London Buses have issued a standard reply stating that they do not
prohibit people from using mobile phones on buses. However this is a growing antisocial
behaviour problem which some of my constituents find extremely unpleasant when using
public transport.

TfL has run marketing campaigns in the past to encourage passengers to consider the wishes of
others when travelling. If a member of the public is unresponsive and continues to disturb others
it is difficult for TfL to do more.
It is hard to see how TfL could introduce and effectively enforce a ban on people using mobile
phones on buses given current social trends.
That said, TfL has just launched a radio and poster campaign aimed at under-16s anti-social
behaviour. The campaign will remind children of the need to behave responsibly whilst using the
bus network, respecting other passengers; otherwise their concession will be removed.
Olympics Parking
Question No: 61 / 2006
Darren Johnson
You commented to the Assembly meeting on 16 November 2005 that you would look at
scaling down Olympics car and coach parking in order to find alternatives to building on
Hackney Marshes and Fish Island. What progress have you achieved?

The design team, working with David Higgins, the interim Olympic Delivery Authority’s chief
executive designate, are still working on these issues as part of a wider process of reviewing the
Olympic Park plans.
Budget Consultation
Question No: 62 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
Given your comments (on 15th December 2005) that you would not have produced a
Consultation Budget unless you were legally required to do so and your view that the
consultation paper was “virtually meaningless” ¿ how can Londoners have a meaningful
input into the budget process?

My comments were about the convoluted nature of the statutory budget process and its timing.
The very size of London makes it difficult to engage Londoners directly in the budget process, but
as I have said before I do of course listen to Londoners' views throughout the year, whether it is
through opinion surveys such as the Annual London Survey or through the meetings and events
I host in City Hall and elsewhere. A good example is the feedback from the Annual London
Survey on neighbourhood policing. The views of any individuals responding to the budget
consultation are also considered.
Question No: 63 / 2006
Graham Tope
What discussions have you had with government about the capping limit for the GLA
Group? Have you been told to work on the basis of a 5.5% increase limit for the GLA?

I have had no discussions about the capping limit as the government does not set its capping
criteria until after budgets have been set. However, I have received two letters from the Minister
for Local Government about council tax next year and I will send you copies if desired.
Question No: 64 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Further to my question 2132 in December, central government has not agreed to fund the
costs of extra resilience capacity for the Fire Service (six fire rescue units) judged essential
for the capital city’s safety. What are you doing to ensure that this clear national
responsibility does not yet again fall to Londoners to fund?

I am committed to fund the enhanced resilience for the Fire Service because I believe strongly, on
the advice of the Fire Commissioner, that this investment is needed to respond to incidents such
as 7 July last year in London. I am of course disappointed that the government has yet to be
persuaded to contribute from national taxation, but will continue to make the case for additional
funding. I understand that postponement of half the transitional relief repayment next year was
as a result of the direct intervention linking these two issues, for which the Chair of the Authority
and I have lobbied.
Staff - City Hall
Question No: 65 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Please give figures for the number of staff employed by the GLA (Core) for each year since
2000 - broken down by Department.

 Directorate         September    September     September September        September    September
                       2000         2001          2002      2003             2004         2005
 Chief Executive          -             4           32            51           51            3
 Communications          19           47.9           -             -            -            -
 Corporate               56            69          140           172          174           173
 Finance and              -            55           64            69           70           73
 Mayor’s Office          26            29           71            84           89           117
 Media and                -             -            -             -            -            57
 Performance and          9            -             -            -             -            -
 Policy and               -          117.4         102           122          125           131
 Secretariat              12          71.4          85            93           93            90
 Strategy                 61           -             -             -            -             -
 Total                   183         393.7         494           591          602           644
Question No: 66 / 2006
Geoff Pope
What are the projected costs of consultants in 2006/07 for each of the Functional Bodies?
What are latest projected (end of year) costs for each Functional Body in 2005/06?
The current forecast for the MPA only for 2005-06 is £148k. Budget for 2006-07 is £150k.

LFEPA’s projected spend is £3.8m in 2005-06 and the proposed budget is £3.2m for 2006-07.
The category of spend is “professional services” and includes areas of spend which can be
classified as consultants, or could be classified differently such as outsourced work (e.g. IT
projects, scientific services, insurance brokers, computer audit), interim managers, external legal
and medical advisers, and building works consultants. These figures may not therefore be directly
comparable with those from other functional bodies unless these have also been produced on that

The projected cost of consultants in 2006-07 for TfL is £116m. The forecast (end of year) costs
of consultants in 2005-06 are expected to be £117m which is slightly above budget.

Consultancy figures for 2006-7 are subject to the London Development Agency’s (LDA)
corporate planning processes. Consultancy costs for 2005-06 year to-date are £5.7m. Projected
consultancy costs to the financial year-end are subject to the appraisal and approval of planned
projects for the rest of 2005-06 which has a consultancy component. The LDA has efficiency
targets, one of which is to monitor and control the usage of consultants within the LDA.

Budget Setting
Question No: 67 / 2006
Graham Tope
Will you provide details of your meeting with Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson AMs on 10
January 2006 and in particular, detail any agreements made between yourself and the
Green Group?

I attach a copy of my letter (as Appendix B) to Darren and Jenny which sets out what was agreed
at that meeting.
The Londoner Newspaper
Question No: 68 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
What financial commitments have each of the functional bodies made to fund The
Londoner newspaper in 2006/07 (please include each amount)?

The LDA has agreed to provide £500,000 of funding for The Londoner in 2006/07. Agreements
have not yet been made with other funding partners.
Transport Commissioner
Question No: 69 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Why do we need another Transport Commissioner?

To continue to deliver the significant improvements in London’s transport system.
TfL Income
Question No: 70 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Please provide a breakdown of TfL’s latest income projections for 2005/06 (end of year)
broken down by fare (each mode) and other income.

The breakdown of TfL’s latest income projection for 2005/06 can be found in the Table below.

        Mode                                           Full Year
                                                   forecast (Q3)
                                                  2005/06 (£m)
        Underground Income from fares                        1,285
        Bus Income from fares                                  941
        Congestion Charging Income                             229
        PCO, VCS Licence fees                                   35
        DLR income from fares                                   44
        Other TfL Income                                       277
        Total                                               2,811
TfL Income
Question No: 71 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Please provide a breakdown of TfL’s latest projections for income in 2006/07 broken
down by fare (each mode) and other income.

The breakdown of TfL’s latest income projection for 2006/07 can be found in the Table below.

        Mode                                          Projected
                                                  2006/07 (£m)
        Underground Income from fares                      1,340
        Bus Income from fares                              1,004
        Congestion Charging Income                           219
        PCO, VCS Licence fees                                 37
        DLR income from fares                                 59
        Other TfL Income                                     287
         Total                                                   2,946
Bus Fare Income
Question No: 72 / 2006
Geoff Pope
How much revenue income will ‘off peak’ cash fare income generate in 2006/07 (TfL

Bus cash fare income is expected to be around £150m in 2006/07. About three quarters of cash
fares revenue arises from travel outside the peaks defined as weekdays 07:00-09:30 and
Cash Payment on Buses
Question No: 73 / 2006
Geoff Pope
What percentage of buses users currently pay by cash? What is TfL’s current thinking
about when buses will be cashless?

In the four week period to 10 December 2005, 7.7% of passengers paid cash on the bus, down from
10.2% in the four week period leading up to 17 September 2005.

Early evidence suggests a further decline in cash payments following the January 2006 fares
change. There are several benefits in passengers paying for their bus travel in advance, including:

   reduced boarding times
   shorter journey times
   avoiding cash handling; reducing the possibility of assaults
   bus contract cost savings

A ‘cashless’ bus network therefore remains an aspiration for TfL, though the current view is to
move towards its introduction no earlier than April 2007 as its introduction would be carefully
managed, with close engagement with stakeholders to ensure its success.
Advertising Revenue on the Tube
Question No: 74 / 2006
Geoff Pope
What advertising revenue did London Underground derive in the financial year 2004/05
from the Northern and Piccadilly Lines? If possible, please provide a breakdown between
revenue from advertising on trains and at stations, and an indication of an average revenue
from a single station.

It is not possible to calculate a figure that reflects a single station. LU currently earns
approximately £35m per year from advertising.

Under the existing advertising contract LU receives an overall amount of revenue in accordance
with the base square metreage offered for sale as commercial advertising. As the bulk of
advertising space is on stations this accounts for the majority of the revenue derived.

The Londoner
Question No: 75 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
Why was the Dartford Express of January 4th distributed with a copy of The Londoner
newspaper inside it? As that newspaper is distributed entirely outside the Greater London
area how much did this insertion cost; and why was the Londoner distributed in this area?

The Dartford Express is distributed both inside and outside Greater London. The GLA’s
distribution package uses the Dartford Express in the following postal sectors:

Postal sector Ward                           Quantity
 BR8 7       Cray Valley East Ward                5989
 BR8 8       Cray Valley East Ward                2665
 DA1 3       Crayford Ward                        3654
 DA5 2       St Mary's Ward                       1562

Postal sector boundaries do not correspond with the Greater London boundary. In cases where
postal sectors fall across the boundaries of the Greater London area the person delivering may
have a round that includes a small number of households over the boundary. There is no way of
splitting small delivery rounds and so in such cases some overlap (one or two streets) is

The cost of delivering to 100 houses outside the Greater London boundary is £3.19.

The total cost for distributing with The Dartford Express in the above postal sectors was
GLA Advertising
Question No: 76 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
How much has the GLA spent in advertising this year in publications whose distribution is
substantially outside the GLA boundaries?

GLA advertising consists of marketing campaigns, legislative and procurement advertising. The
GLA has spent £31,362 on advertising in publications with reach outside of the GLA’s
boundaries. This represents 2% of our total media spend.
Christmas Cards
Question No: 77 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
How many Christmas cards did you send out through the post and what was the cost?
I sent out a total of 3,797 cards. The cost of posting these cards was £808, compared to the
London Assembly party groups who ordered a total of 9,450 cards, costing the GLA an estimated
£2,740 to post.
Precept Increase
Question No: 78 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
Has the inflation in the cost of a Walnut Whip increased in line with your precept?

I have only increased the precept in line with what I think is a reasonable cost to the council tax
payer for the investment in vital public services that I have delivered. There is no reason why this
should have increased at the same rate as a mass-produced confectionery product.
Lesbian and Gay Museum
Question No: 79 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
What financial support has the GLA given to the Lesbian and Gay Museum project to
date? Why has £24,000 been returned to the GLA General Fund Reserve? What is the
current status of the project?

The GLA has not provided direct financial support to the Lesbian & Gay Museum. Money was
earmarked for an independent feasibility report. It was agreed with the organisers via meetings
with them, that this research was not needed as they had already carried out most of this work.
Therefore the GLA feasibility study was not commissioned. The budget allocated was therefore
not required. The project is being progressed by an independent charitable trust with my support.
Childcare Affordability Programme (CAP)
Question No: 80 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Please can you separate the figures you provided last month to show the number of
flexible, and the number of full daycare places, by borough, of the 3,170 childcare places
funded in the first phase of round 1?

Affordable Full Day care and Affordable Flexible Child care pilots, Round 1

                     Number        Full Day                            Total Full and
     Borough           of            care                              Flexible places
                                                Childcare places
                    providers       places                              being offered
  Barking &
  Dagenham                    9             0                  88                      88
  Bexley                      4             0                 148                     148
  Brent                      21            70                 456                     526
  Bromley                    11            50                 113                     163
  Camden                      2             9                   12                    21
  Ealing                     12           114                  114                   228
  Enfield                     6            24                   64                    88
  Greenwich                  17            82                   71                   153
  Hackney*                   11            21                  240                   261
  Hammersmith                 7            82                   16                    98
  Harrow                      5            30                   35                    65
  Hillingdon                  9            60                   89                   149
  Hounslow                    2            10                   15                    25
  Islington*                  9            43                   52                    95
  Kensington                  1             8                    0                     8
  Kingston                    6            27                   25                    52
  Lambeth                    17           156                  224                   380
  Lewisham                    4            44                    5                    49
  Newham                      3             0                   21                    21
  Redbridge                   3            11                   42                    53
  Richmond                    7            32                    4                    36
  Southwark                  11            50                   37                    87
  Hamlets                    10           113                  136                   249
  Forest                      4             0                   75                    75
  Wandsworth                  8            15                   18                    33
  Westminster                 3            13                    6                    19
  Total                   202*          1 064                2 106                 3 170
  * 201 actual providers in total as a single provider falls within
  two boroughs
Life Sciences
Question No: 81 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Given that there are “supply shortages in the life sciences sector, which is prioritised for
support in my Economic Development Strategy” (MQT 1753/2005), can you explain why
the Life Sciences budget for 2006/7 is being cut by over 50%?

Through the corporate planning process the London Development Agency has reviewed all
resource allocation fairly and objectively. Life sciences continue to be an ongoing priority sector
for London’s economic development. However, as with all projects, the financial burden of
meeting all the priorities within one sector and in one financial year must be balanced and
evaluated against all other economic priorities in London. Any considerable reductions in any
given financial year are mitigated by conventional investment phasing over a three year term.
Turner Street and Varden Street
Question No: 82 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Can you provide an update on the proposal to develop a bioscience business innovation
centre in partnership with Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) on this site?

The London Development Agency (LDA) has acquired the site at Turner Street and Varden
Street and is committed to working with Queen Mary University in order to create a bioscience
business centre in Whitechapel, which could create 200 jobs and give the area a much-needed
economic boost.

There are a number of planning and development constraints relating to this particular site.
However, the LDA is committed to creating such a facility in Whitechapel.
LDA Performance on Housing Units
Question No: 83 / 2006
Dee Doocey
At the end of September 2005, the LDA had only facilitated 183 housing units compared to
the annual target of 1,500. Why is the LDA underperforming against this target?

The low number of housing units facilitated is clearly a concern at the half year point. However, it
must be considered that completed units are unlikely to conform to a timeline that achieves 25%
of the target at the end of each quarter. The London Development Agency (LDA) has advised me
that the reporting process for Quarter 3 actual completions has still to be finalised but is
indicating an increase exceeding the Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 total, with the large proportion of
forecast completions anticipated for Quarter 4. I am therefore confident that the LDA will reach
the annual target of 1,500 housing units.
Question No: 84 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Are you still planning to meet the target of providing 2,350 new childcare places as
specified in the LDA output targets for 2005/6?

The output target is made up of 2,000 childcare supported places and 350 new childcare spaces.
As of January 2006, 3,170 childcare places have been supported through the Childcare
Affordability Programme and the London Development Agency expect to meet the target of
creating an additional 350 new spaces by the end of March 2006, therefore well exceeding the
output of 2,350 in total.
London Offices in China
Question No: 85 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
You have confirmed that the activities of London’s offices in Beijing and Shanghai will
include ‘civic leadership and policy exchange’. Please detail what role you envisage the
offices playing in promoting fundamental human rights in China, which continues to
suppress political dissent and freedom of expression.

The population of China is experiencing not only rapid economic growth but rapidly growing
living standards both of which have major consequences for the world economy. London must
aim to engage with these. These developments will inevitably increase demands for democratic
expression. I believe that the best approach is to engage positively with the Chinese government
at municipal and national levels, and to provide constructive advice and support when the latter is
sought. My offices in China will carry out objectives aimed at realising these objectives,
promoting exchange of ideas and experience to help both sides in their civic leadership and
service delivery roles.
London Offices in China
Question No: 86 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Please list the organisations that have been or will be consulted in the development of
civic leadership programmes to be led by London’s offices in China. What will these
programmes involve?

Work is making satisfactory progress towards opening offices in both Beijing and Shanghai and
these have aroused significant interest for promoting ties between London and China. However
given that staff are still being recruited and neither office is open it is too early to say their precise
activities or which London stakeholders will be involved in this activity.
Visit to China
Question No: 87 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
What steps will you take to highlight the serious and widespread human rights violations
that are ongoing in China, during your planned April visit to open the London offices in
Beijing and Shanghai?

Rapidly rising living standards in China are of course a welcome contribution to elimination of
poverty and improvement of human rights, and will lead to increasing demands for democratic
reform, while I have also made clear that an entirely unacceptable situation exists in various
fields. As I have said before, I believe that the best approach is to engage positively with the
Chinese government at municipal and national levels, and to provide constructive advice and
support when the latter is sought. It is of the greatest importance to the prosperity of London to
engage with the Chinese economy. I shall express all these views during my visit to China as have
the prime minister and all other official visitors.
London Offices in China
Question No: 88 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
How will the new London Offices in China work with other UK representative offices, in
particular the Corporation of London’s already established resource there?

My Office are very aware of the need to present a unified presence in China both for London and
the UK. We have worked closely with UK Government both in London and through the Embassy
in Beijing and we are also working with colleagues in other regional development agencies to
avoid duplication of effort and resources.

The team in London comprises all of the key agencies in London with an interest in promoting
the city as a location in which to invest, visit or study. The Corporation of London will be actively
promoting the strength of London's financial and business services sector in China and we look
forward to working closely with them in the future.
Driver Announcements on London Underground
Question No: 89 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Customer Satisfaction with driver announcements on the tube is down. Has TfL done any
work to examine why satisfaction is down and what action is being taken to address this

The Customer Satisfaction Surveys (CSS) showed a very slight decrease in the last quarter
(July-September 05) compared to the previous quarter (April –June 05) and early indications
show that for the current quarter (October - December 05) the CSS scores have returned to the
levels previously recorded.

It is inevitable that over a period of time slight changes to scores do occur, but London
Underground (LU) would not consider these to be a trend unless they occur over two consecutive
quarters, or if there is an exceptional increase or decrease from the previous quarter.

I will keep watching to see of there is an indication that there is a trend.
Oyster Pre-pay
Question No: 90 / 2006
Geoff Pope
The latest performance monitoring figures show that only 3% on passengers use Oyster
Pre-Pay. Are you disappointed at the low take-up despite advertising campaigns? What is
the projected uptake of Oyster for 2006/07?

Oyster take-up figures are not disappointing. The overall percentage figures need to be seen in
the context of very popular Travelcard and Bus Pass products; and the Freedom Pass.

By the end of November 2005, Oyster fares comprised around 8% of all journeys on the Tube; and
3% on buses.

By mid January, these take-up figures appear to be approaching 12% on the Tube; and 5% on

By the end of 2006/07, TfL expect Oyster fares to account for around 25% of journeys on the
Tube and 10% on buses.
Oyster Pre-pay
Question No: 91 / 2006
Geoff Pope
While there has been a welcome increase in the take-up of Oystercard Pre-Pay following
the introduction of TfL’s new fare structure, there is still a long way to go before a
majority of passengers use Pre-Pay as only 3% have taken it up. Can you confirm that
Pre-Pay will be re-branded as ‘Pay As You Go’? What plans are there for a promotional
campaign that will enable passengers to grasp the concept and understand the benefits?

Yes, Pre-Pay has been re-branded as pay as you go. All new communication will reflect this and
all current information is being updated. The benefits of Oyster have been regularly
communicated via advertising and customer information, e.g. the Guide to Oyster. Throughout
2006, the benefits of Oyster will be heavily promoted.
Oyster Pre-pay and TOCs
Question No: 92 / 2006
Graham Tope
Will you seek legal powers under new legislation to compel train operating companies to
accept Pre-Pay Oystercard at their stations within Greater London?

No. The Department for Transport already has powers to compel train operators to make

See also the answer to question 53/2006.
Customer Charter Refunds
Question No: 93 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Please state how many Customer Charter Refunds London Underground have processed
each month during 2005. What is the cost of providing these refunds in terms of staffing
and revenue loss?

During 2005 London Underground has processed 543,535 Customer Charter claims totalling

           Month           Number of claims         Value of claims
           January              59,977                 £186,765.00
           February             44,705                 £140,460.70
           March                57,033                 £175,875.50
           April                36,466                 £112,629.20
           May                  47,573                 £145,984.90
           June                 53,695                 £168,034.20
           July                 35,415                 £114,700.60
           August               43,745                 £138,313.40
           September            40,408                 £122,985.00
           October              53,903                 £158,762.70
           November             52,223                 £155,437.30

The cost of administering the Customer Charter Refunds System is approximately £400,000 per
annum. This can vary depending on the volume of refunds. Plans to expand and improve web
functionality and associated systems will reduce the administration costs going forward.
Extension to Bus Route 72
Question No: 94 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Please explain why a serious and well prepared proposal to extend the 72 bus route to
Kingston Hospital was dismissed out of hand in contemptuous terms by a TfL
spokesperson in the local newspaper. Is this how London Buses intends in future to
respond to proposals made by local communities and elected representatives?

TfL do not agree that the proposal was rejected out of hand or ‘in contemptuous terms’. TfL
considered the request very carefully, but could not progress it because the additional journeys
and benefits provided would not justify the considerable extra cost and resources needed to
extend the route.

The bus network cannot provide a direct link for every destination in London. This link is
already possible with one change of bus, from route 72 to route 85. The frequency and reliability
of both services have improved in recent years. In addition, a new entrance to Kingston Hospital
will create a more direct and level route from the bus stop.
Proposals from the public are carefully considered, and always will be. TfL will continue to make
changes to the network that are necessary to accommodate changing demand, and represent
value for money. The success of TfL’s approach is reflected in the fact that patronage has
increased by almost 40% since 1999/2000.
Winter Warmth Campaign
Question No: 95 / 2006
Geoff Pope
How will the Winter Warmth Campaign target those Londoners most in need of advice
and help? Is the pack simply sent to all Londoners over a certain age? How will the project
be evaluated?

This campaign was sponsored by British Gas and Help the Aged. The pack was sent out to every
pensioner over the age of 65, as all older people are vulnerable to the cold. This mailing is being
supported with a specialist programme of communications targeting older people from ethnic

The project will be evaluated via a telephone survey, calls to the 0845 number and visits to the
Help the Aged web site.
Extension of 549 Bus Route
Question No: 96 / 2006
Graham Tope
A petition from the community in South Woodford indicates considerable support for
extending the 549 route from South Woodford to Whipps Cross Hospital. Is there any
chance that London Buses will consider this proposal seriously?

TfL considers carefully all proposals for changes to the bus network and progresses those that are
cost effective and necessary to accommodate changing levels of passenger demand or new travel

The possibility of extending route 549 was investigated. TfL found that too few additional
journeys would be made to justify the extra resources that would be necessary to extend the
route. South Woodford residents can access the hospital by interchanging from route 549 to the
W12, which directly serves the hospital grounds.
Buses to Hospitals
Question No: 97 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Moves within the NHS to close local hospitals and concentrate facilities in hospitals far
distant from local communities mean that it is important for London Buses to review bus
services so that patients and visitors can travel these longer distances at times which fit
with hospital appointments and visiting schedules. Will you ensure that London Buses
accepts this challenge and comes forward with solutions?

I agree that this is an important issue, London buses are addressing it. TfL has invested
significantly in bus service provision to meet local needs for new and, in many cases, longer
distance trips to access hospital facilities on new sites. Often such changes benefit the health
authority, as they rationalise and reduce sites and dispose of them, but can result in inconvenience
for patients, visitors and employees and additional costs to TfL as the new facilities are poorly
sited in terms of assess by public transport and other sustainable modes.

TfL works closely with Hospital Trusts and other health bodies to understand changes in
hospital provision and to develop the bus network in a way that takes account of such changes.
This work will continue.
Tiger’s Head Junction
Question No: 98 / 2006
Graham Tope
Can you confirm that as a part of TfL Street Management’s plan to improve the A20
Bromley Road junction with Southend/Whitefoot Lane, two new green man crossings will
be added to this junction?

Yes. The design for the scheme to improve pedestrian facilities at this junction is complete. The
scheme would provide controlled (green man) pedestrian crossings on all arms of the junction,
but requires a strip of land owned by Lewisham Council to be taken into the highway.

TfL and Lewisham are in the process of negotiating terms for the transfer of this land. TfL will
make every effort to reach a swift conclusion to these negotiations. Once this matter is finalised
the scheme is then ready to move forward to construction.
Silverlink Metro Franchise
Question No: 99 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Please can you give an update on how TfL Rail’s negotiations with the Department for
Transport are going over the plan for TfL to assume responsibility for the Silverlink
Metro rail franchise ¿ were these not to have been concluded during last Autumn? What, if
any, are the sticking points?

TfL are in the process of concluding negotiations with the DfT on the terms of responsibility for
the Silverlink Metro franchise. There have been detailed financial negotiations to ensure that the
terms of transfer are in the interests of London and will not result in an unfair cost burden. I am
confident that these negotiations will be concluded in the very near future. TfL will then put in
place arrangements to let a concession which will take over from the present franchisee. This is
planned to take place in 2007.
Thameslink Box
Question No: 100 / 2006
Graham Tope
It appears that the Department for Transport are still dithering about committing the
necessary funding to fit out the “Thameslink Box” as a functioning station alongside the
Eurostar terminal at St Pancras Station. This threatens to compromise the launch of St
Pancras in 2007. What further pressure are you able to bring to bear on the Secretary of
State to announce that this very necessary work will be funded?

TfL continue to work with DfT to enable earlier completion of the Thameslink ‘box’. They have
also been progressing arrangements at King’s Cross LUL to enable the new station to be brought
into service as soon as possible.
London Underground Managers
Question No: 101 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Your Answer to my Question 2346/2005 indicated that London Underground are
employing some 602 Managers on salaries of up to £57.010. London Buses appears to have
65 staff on equivalent salaries within their Management Teams. Please account for this
disparity and provide a breakdown of the functions of the 602 LU Managers.

The total number of staff employed by London Underground is 13,185. Of this, 10,856 are
employed as staff and managers in operations. Besides the running of the operational railway
London Underground has ten Directorates.

The breakdown of the 602 LU Managers by Directorate is:

Operations                                 73
Chief Programmes Office                    129
Engineering                                34
Safety, Quality & Environment                     44
Employee Relations                         6
Human Resources                            10
Finance                                    35
Legal                                      16
Strategy & Service Development             120
Operational Support                        105
Information Management                     30

The disparity between the number of Managers employed by London Underground and London
Buses is due to the difference in size and structure of both organisations. London Underground
retains staff for day to day operations whereas London Buses contract out these services.
Future of Congestion Charging
Question No: 102 / 2006
Geoff Pope
If TfL’s current ‘tag and beacon’ trials are successful, and you are able to introduce road
pricing in Greater London using that technology, will the current congestion zones be
discontinued ? How far ahead do you estimate such developments might be?

The current trials are to test the technology in the London context. Assuming they prove
successful, any consideration to take a scheme forward would need to be in the context of the
Government initiative to consider the feasibility of a national distance-based road pricing scheme,
potentially using satellite technology. However Government do not expect to implement a
national scheme till after 2015.

TfL are considering options for use of tag and beacon for the current congestion charging
scheme. This would still be based on payment when passing a fixed point, rather than on distance
travelled. Tag and beacon for the current charging scheme could not be introduced before the
re-let of the service provider contract, which is planned for 2009/10.
Bus Countdown at Sutton
Question No: 103 / 2006
Graham Tope
At the November MQT, I asked about a bus countdown at a bus stop in Sutton, which has
been out of action for a number of months. The problem is not going to be resolved until
the end of this month. Why does it take so long for such problems to be identified, and
what is being done to speed up the process?

TfL apologises for the delay in resolving the problems with this Countdown sign.

TfL’s policy is to remove any faulty signs that cannot be repaired within ninety days. However,
in this case there were three consecutive faults: two cases of vandalism and a further problem as a
result of resurfacing work on the footway. This led to the much longer timescales in this case.
TfL has reviewed the procedures and is implementing steps to ensure stricter adherence in future.
Bus Countdowns
Question No: 104 / 2006
Graham Tope
How frequently are bus countdowns checked to ensure that they are in good working

TfL aims to check every Countdown sign on site every four weeks through a mobile patrol. In
addition, there are ad-hoc checks by Sign Engineers and other staff.

TfL also remotely monitor those Countdown signs fitted with digital cabling to allow faults to be
detected without the need for a site visit. If you know of any faulty signs, please let London Buses
Customer Services know (via 0845 300 7000).
Benefits of the Electric Trolley Bus
Question No: 105 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Now that new electric trolley buses are being successfully introduced in international
cities such as Rome and Lyon accommodating up to 200 passengers, and given that
implementation is less disruptive, quicker and much cheaper than the tram, and that
electric trolley bus manoeuvrability offers more route and bus stop design flexibility and is
much quieter than the tram, will you reassess this option for the Uxbridge Road project?

TfL commenced development of the West London Tram as a result of a multi-modal study into
buses, trolleybuses and trams conducted in 2000. This study concluded that a tram system was
the best option when evaluated against the Multi Criteria Assessment Framework (MCAF).

Further work has indicated that the tram’s greater capacity over trolleybuses means it provides
the more efficient solution to meeting predicted demand on the congested Uxbridge Road.

It should be noted that both Lyon and Rome have modern tram systems as well on the routes
where this mode is called for.

As part of TfL’s application documentation, it will set out how the Tram solution compares
against alternatives schemes such as a trolleybus.
Integration of Maintenance on LU and Network Rail
Question No: 106 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Will you direct TfL to enter into talks with Network Rail to ensure that there are no
concurrent line closures on overground rail and London Underground in the same part of
London? Around Richmond throughout the weekend of 14/15 Jan there was no South
West Trains service between Barnes, Richmond, Twickenham and Teddington, no tube
service on the District Line between Hammersmith and Richmond and Acton Town, and
no easy way of confirming that the North London Line was not operating between Acton
and Richmond?

TfL and London Underground (LU) are in regular contact with Network Rail to co-ordinate the
closures programme. LU provides quarterly Tube closure information looking ahead up to 3
years. LU also meets quarterly to protect areas where customers will rely on Train Operating
Companies to provide alternative routes during LU closures.

On the weekend in question, the North London line (Silverlink Metro) did provide a shuttle
service between Richmond and Acton Central enabling Richmond customers to connect with our
rail replacement buses at Gunnersbury and then onward Tube connections at Hammersmith and
Acton Town. It is unfortunate that a closure on South West Trains also affected services from
Richmond – LU had requested at a planning meeting that Network Rail protect the Richmond to
Waterloo route, but this did not happen.
Camden Town Tube Station
Question No: 107 / 2006
Geoff Pope
What is the progress on potential redevelopment plans at Camden Town tube station and
what representations are being made to ensure that improved station capacity and access
arrangements are implemented including opening a new entrance nearer to Camden Road

While the Secretaries of State did not grant London Underground (LU) a TWA order to
redevelop Camden Town tube station, they did accept that the transport case for a station
redevelopment was made.

LU, in discussion with the London Borough of Camden, has indicated that it wishes to resubmit a
planning application for a redeveloped station. In response, the Borough is preparing a planning
brief for the site. Once this planning brief has been prepared, LU intends to commission a revised
design for the station and above station buildings.

While the original design for the station was being developed, LU also examined the case for a
link to the Camden Road Network Rail station. There is a high cost and severe disruption
associated with building such a link which cannot be justified given the relatively small benefit.
Handrails on Buses
Question No: 108 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Is bright yellow the colour which is most visible to people with a visual impairment and if
so, why are not handrails on all new buses bright yellow? What guidance does the RNIB
give on this issue?

Established guidelines by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC: who
draw up guidelines based on consultation with disability groups including the RNIB), recommend
that hand rails should be highlighted with a maximum level of contrast. The colour should be
chosen to stand out from surrounding surfaces including interior wall panels and seat coverings.

As each operator has a slightly different interior scheme within their buses, the latest TfL vehicle
specification calls for a contrasting colour from a range of four colour options. This is in line with
best practice.
Wheelchair Access on Buses
Question No: 109 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Are all bus drivers instructed to allow wheelchair users to enter the bus before able bodied
passengers to save bus dwell times and to make it easier to manoeuvre the wheelchair?

Bus driver training has been standardised through the introduction of TfL’s BTEC qualification
and disability equality training is a key part.

Although circumstances may vary, the guidance given to bus drivers is to allow passengers to
disembark then deploy the ramp so that the wheelchair user may board. Once the wheelchair
ramp has been retracted, all other passengers can board via the front doors. It ensures wheelchair
users are able to board more easily. These guidelines have been produced in leaflet for drivers
called ‘Getting It Right’ and in a separate leaflet for disabled users called ‘Get on Board’.
Failures on London Underground
Question No: 110 / 2006
Geoff Pope
Please provide total number of (a) track (b) signalling (c) rolling stock failures which have
occurred on each of the London Underground lines in the year 2005/6 so far.

 The table below sets out the numbers of failures on each line for the first nine periods of 2005-06
(1 April to 10 December).

The figures represent the number of failures that were attributable to Infracos and that resulted
in service disruptions of 2 minutes or more.

  Line                                Track       Signals
  Bakerloo                                 17         50       534
  Central                                  24        264      1045
  Circle & Hammersmith                     38        123       387
  District                                 58        304       480
  East London                               6         15        61
  Jubilee                                  52        106       381
  Metropolitan                             44        185       654
  Northern                                 64        338      1416
  Piccadilly                               44         82       543
  Victoria                                 25        159       386
  Waterloo and City                         0         19        26
  Total                                   372       1645      5913
Bob Kiley Affordable Housing
Question No: 111 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Are you aware that in view your Answer to my Question 2349/2005 you are in effect
proposing to budget for between £227,500 and £260,000 to subsidise Bob Kiley’s tenure
of the £2.1 million house bought for him by TfL? Additionally, if expenditure on the
upkeep of this house runs at the same level as it has over the past four years, TfL can
expect to pay in the region of a further £87,500? Would not other key workers in London
seeking affordable housing feel that £347,500 of public money could be spent more
The figures outlined in MQT 2349/2005 are correct. However, I do not expect that the upkeep
will remain at the level that you indicated as a considerable proportion of the maintenance costs
related to non-recurring repairs such as work on the roof.

No one is more committed than I to addressing the housing needs of Londoners including key
workers. In relation to Bob Kiley, I would point out the tremendous contribution he has made to
improving the transport system in London. Key workers are obvious beneficiaries of this.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams
Question No: 112 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
How will Safer Neighbourhood Teams be funded in future years?

This is given in the table on page 9 of the budget document which shows the three main sources of
funding. In 2007-08 the re-directed budget is increasing by inflation from £27m to £27.8m,
grant from the neighbourhood policing fund is increasing from £16.3m to £32.1m and there is a
net growth in the budget from £31.8m to £58.8m to be funded from general grants/precept.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams
Question No: 113 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
What is the full year cost of a full Safer Neighbourhood Team rolled out in a full year?

The MPA inform me that the full year cost of a full SNT rolled out in a full year is £366,310
(excluding pension costs) based on

1 Police Sergeant

2 Police Constables

3 PCSOs.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams
Question No: 114 / 2006
Graham Tope
Can you confirm, for the record, that no existing Safer Neighbourhood Teams will have
any members of their team redeployed to another ward in order to achieve the ‘advance
team’ roll out announced by yourself and Sir Ian Blair on 10 January 2006?

Yes. The MPS has no intention to transfer resources from existing Safer Neighbourhood
Safer Neighbourhood Teams
Question No: 115 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
Why will the cost of completing the roll out of Safer Neighbourhood Teams almost double
from £48.1M in 2006/07 to £90.9M in 2007/08 and 2008/09, as identified on page 43 of
your budget consultation document?

The reason for the increase is due to the budget in 2006-07 providing for roll out during the year,
whereas the 2007-08 budget reflects the full year cost. The table on page 43 includes only the
additional costs (over and above 2005-06), whereas the table on page 9 also includes the
re-direction of existing budget.
Safer Neighbourhood Team
Question No: 116 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Where will Borough Commanders find the resources to complete the minimum 4-officer
Safer Neighbourhood Teams across every London ward by April 2006?

Of the 625 wards in London, more than 280 already have safer neighbourhood teams in
place. The resources to roll out the minimum model in April 2006. consisting of one sergeant, one
PC and two PCSOs, for the wards without teams will come through several different routes. As
part of the roll out, boroughs are aligning permanent beat officers with safer neighbourhood
teams to provide some of the sergeants and PCs required. The MPS deployment plan will identify
the additional officers required and allocate them to boroughs. Boroughs also have PCSOs that
are not currently part of the safer neighbourhood teams. They too will be aligned. In addition,
recruitment is already underway for additional PCSOs to enable the MPS to complete the
minimum model in April and the full teams by September 2006. This will be accommodated
within the proposed budget.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams
Question No: 117 / 2006
Graham Tope
Do you agree with the Assistant Commissioner for Territorial Policing that Safer
Neighbourhood Teams comprising less than 6 personnel are “invisible”?

It is planned that full teams of six officers (comprising of one sergeant, two PCs and three PCSOs)
will be operational in every neighbourhood during 2006/07. In the meantime the foundations of a
safer neighbourhood team of a minimum of four officers in place by the end of April 2006 in every
ward is welcome. In addition, discussions are taking place to provide additional PCSOs in
neighbourhoods with large populations to ensure visibility and adequate policing.

Safer neighbourhood teams provide a visible, reassuring presence to Londoners. They engage
with local people to solve local problems. Where safer neighbourhood teams are already
operating Londoners are happier with the way their neighbourhood is being policed. In Tower
Hamlets, where local authority funding has already enabled all neighbourhoods to have a
dedicated team, reported crime is falling at nearly six times the rate that crime is falling across
Safer Neighbourhood Teams
Question No: 118 / 2006
Dee Doocey
What proportion of the posts in the accelerated roll-out are genuinely new, rather than
transferred from existing functions?

The Safer Neighbourhoods Programme will utilise 500 existing police officer posts and will grow
by 650 police officers, 1104 PCSOs. This equates to the service providing 22% of the
resources 78% in new growth for the full roll out.
Question No: 119 / 2006
Graham Tope
What proportion of officers in the MPS carry radios capable of accessing the Airwave

I am told by the MPS that 11,500 Airwave radio handsets have been issued to MPS officers to
date, representing 37% of all Police Officers. That number is increasing weekly. The officers
concerned are mainly specialist officers such as Transport OCU, Royal Parks OCU, Special
Branch, Anti-Terrorist Branch, Palace of Westminster and similar.
Thames Gateway
Question No: 120 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
What is your response to the IPPR Report ‘Gateway People’ which highlighted the need
for Thames Gateway developments to offer more than affordability in order to promote
the development of genuinely mixed communities?

I have always been clear that development in the Thames Gateway should contribute to the
creation of sustainable communities, with benefits to new and existing residents and workers.

Affordability of housing is an important factor for the area, but so to are jobs, access to good
transport, education, and health facilities and to green space. The IPPR report reiterates these
points that have already been recognised by myself and others.
Thames Gateway
Question No: 121 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
In the light of the IPPR Report ‘Gateway People’, what action will be taken to ensure that
existing communities in the Thames Gateway are better informed about the benefits of
developments in their area?

Communities in the Thames Gateway are informed about developments in their area in a number
of ways, most importantly through their local authority, through their Local Strategic
Partnership and statutory consultation on planning applications for new developments.
Information and support on more strategic initiatives is available from the Thames Gateway
London Partnership and the London Thames Gateway Forum, created specifically to support and
encourage community participation in the regeneration in the Thames Gateway.
Hackney Broadway Market
Question No: 122 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
What discussions have been held with Hackney Council over their decision to sell off
property in Broadway Market for the development of upmarket flats, and whether this is in
line with policies for urban development as outlined in the London Plan?

My officers have not been involved in discussions with Hackney Council over this issue. This is a
matter for the local Council.
Question No: 123 / 2006
Sally Hamwee
Are you satisfied that concerns of local residents have been taken into account in planning
decisions made over the development of Broadway Market in Hackney?

I have not taken a view as this is a local planning matter.
Octavia Estates
Question No: 124 / 2006
Dee Doocey
Do you support the tenants of the Octavia Hill estates in Vauxhall, Waterloo and
Walworth in their opposition to plans by the Church Commissioners to sell these estates?
Will you write to the Commissioners and the Archbishop of Canterbury asking them
reconsider their decision, and if they will not change their minds, call on the
Commissioners to only sell the estates to a registered social landlord?

As I noted in my earlier reply to a similar question by Valerie Shawcross, I am of course
concerned wherever there is the possibility of a change of ownership resulting in an adverse
change of circumstances for the residents. I support the principle that sales of affordable housing
– where absolutely necessary – should be made to an agency that will seek as far as possible to
keep rents at affordable levels, and with no loss of security of tenure.

My direct housing powers do not give me any authority with regard to such matters. Nor indeed
would the new powers that are proposed under the merging of regional housing and planning.
Issues of the legal protection for tenants are a matter of national law.

However, my officers have already informally contacted both sides in the dispute to see if
anything can be done. The Church Commissioners are adamant that their legal obligations
provide them with no alternative but to seek the best (ie maximum) possible financial return from
investments, in order to support clergy stipends etc; the tenants’ representatives dispute this
point of law. Setting a stipulation that a property portfolio can only be sold to one type of party
would almost certainly breach the requirement to maximise income.

From these informal discussions by my officers, it appears that there is a strong likelihood that
the most recent disposal will in fact be to a registered social landlord on the basis of the bids
received. This will be in line with the previous disposal, which went to a joint consortium that
included an RSL. The Church Commissioners were keen to stress that they will deal only with
agencies that can demonstrate a good track record in housing management.

Notwithstanding the restrictions on my legal powers, I would be pleased to write in these terms
to the Commissioners and the Archbishop of Canterbury to ask them to reconsider and, if not, to
ask them to use all their efforts and powers to sell only to a registered social landlord.
* Food Strategy
Question No: 125 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Given your stated objective to use “the power of public procurement... to transform food
markets and drive sustainability”, what proportion of London¿s food economy is
dependant on public sector purchasing? Please define the total and then provide separate
figures for major elements such as school meals and hospital catering.

Although there are no precise figures for London, the potential for public procurement to help
improve health and sustainability, and its economic impact is extensive. The public sector in
England spends around £2 billion a year on food and catering. London’s share of that is
considerable, thought to be in the order of £160million a year in schools and £80million a year in
hospitals. Although these figures are approximate, they illustrate the contribution this sector can
make economically, in improving the health of the people eating the meals and in making the food
sector more sustainable.
Food Strategy
Question No: 126 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Which NHS Trusts are currently experimenting with the sustainable procurement of food
as part of the emerging London food strategy and with what results?

Sustainable food procurement will be a key element in the London food strategy. The Royal
Brompton hospital, St George’s hospital, the South London and Maudsley Trust and Ealing
General have, since January 2004 been working to increase the proportion of local and/or organic
food to 10% of their routine catering, within current budgets and supply systems. Almost 15% of
the Royal Brompton’s catering is now from local and/or organic sources, with the other hospitals
still working towards the 10% target. The pilot run by Sustain ends in spring 2006 and they are
seeking funding to extend the project to around twenty hospitals and care homes.
Air Quality
Question No: 127 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
In the light of recent studies undertaken for the British Thoracic Society, what action can
be taken to reduce particulate levels in Oxford Street, found to be around five times higher
than levels in Hyde Park?

Road transport is the largest source of air pollution emissions in London, particularly in central
London and along busy roads, such as Oxford Street. I have a number of initiatives to reduce
emissions from road transport. This includes:
     - implementing a Low Emission Zone (LEZ), which subject to consultation would
        discourage the most polluting lorries, buses and coaches from London’s streets,
     - my Taxi Emission Strategy which will make London’s 20,000 black cabs meet stringent
        emission limits,
     - my TfL Bus improvement programme - all my buses now meet a minimum Euro II
        emission standard and have a particulate filter, which reduces particulate matter (PM)
        emissions by 90% - this has saved 375 tonnes of PM since 1999 - I am also trialling three
        zero-emission hydrogen powered buses, and
     - my congestion charging scheme and other initiatives which encourage Londoners to cycle,
        walk or use public transport instead of travelling by car – London is the only major city to
        have achieved a modal shift away from the private car.

I am sure I can count on the whole-hearted support of the Lib Dems for making London a Low
Emission Zone.
London Waterways Commission
Question No: 128 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
How much has it cost to set up the London Waterways Commission and what is its annual

The financial cost has been nil, aside from staff time. The Commission does not have an annual
budget. The Commission may bid for resources, either to the GLA or other bodies for funds for
specific projects, any such bids will have to be considered against the range of other competing
Officers from the GLA and TfL will continue to provide both administrative and technical
support to the Commission within reasonable limits.
London Waterways Commission
Question No: 129 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Through what means, and in what timeframe, will the London Waterways Commission
issue advice on the enhanced use of London’s waterways? How will its performance be

I expect the Commission to send me minutes of its meetings and any specific reports or
conclusions that it comes to. In practice of course this will normally go through my officers and I
expect the Commission to engage my officers in the first instance. I do not currently propose any
specific performance measures for the Commission but I will review its membership and overall
performance on an annual basis.
Interceptor Tunnel
Question No: 130 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
Given that the Environment Agency remains in favour of an Interceptor Tunnel as the
‘only long term, viable, and cost effective solution’ to protect the Thames tideway from
the adverse effects of wastewater, what is your position on the OFWAT review of the
Thames Tideway Strategic Study, which reported scope for alternative solutions?

It is not only the Environment Agency that believe the Interceptor Tunnel is the most economic
and sustainable long term option to deal with this. The Thames Tideway Steering Group, on
which I am represented and comprises Thames Water, Environment Agency, DEFRA and
OfWAT are observers also hold this view. The Ofwat Review revealed some differences in
technical assessment and did not resolve the outstanding legal position on whether or not issues
had to be tackled as a statutory requirement.

My view is that project is needed for London’s sustainable future and no amount of tinkering at
the edges will overcome the need for a comprehensive solution.

The further challenge will be to ensure that London continues to be developed sustainably over
the next 100 years to ensure that we will not need another Interceptor Tunnel.
London Underground Recycling
Question No: 131 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
What was the outcome of Metronet’s feasibility study into terminus station recycling and
what opportunities have been identified by London Underground for further recycling
opportunities on the tube network?

Metronet has assessed the viability of implementing a recycling scheme for those terminus
stations which they are responsible for maintaining. All have been found suitable for
implementation of recycling. Metronet is planning to open a tender process later this year.
London Underground Recycling
Question No: 132 / 2006
Mike Tuffrey
What percentage of waste collected in underground trains and stations was recycled in the
last financial year and what progress has been made by Tubelines and Metronet to
implement a paper recycling scheme?

Please see response to 131/2006.
Olympic Aquatic Centre
Question No: 133 / 2006
Dee Doocey
When do you expect the Olympic Aquatics Centre to be completed, and at what cost?

The interim Olympic Delivery Authority are in the planning phase of all the construction work
which means that they are looking in detail at what we need to build and the associated timelines
and costs.

Ultimately there is only one thing that matters – that these facilities are ready for the Games and
the test events we are committed to hold in advance. They will be.
Winter Wonderland
Question No: 134 / 2006
Dee Doocey
How much did the borough of Westminster contribute to the Winter Wonderland
campaign? How will the project be evaluated?

Westminster City Council worked in partnership with the GLA to support the delivery of the
Winter Wonderland Campaign. It was not a financial partnership.

The project will be evaluated by Visit London, using standard marketing metrics such as hits to
the campaign micro site, and increases in on line bookings for hotels and events.
West London Tram
Question No: 135 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Following your answers to questions 2257/2005 and 2258/2005 regarding the West
London Tram project, could you tell me what will happen to West Middlesex Golf Club
when the proposed substation is constructed in the middle of the fourth fairway as
outlined in the second round consultation?

There is no substation proposed on the West Middlesex Golf Club. TfL are holding discussions
with the Golf Club in relation to a proposed temporary construction compound on their land.
However, TfL do not intend to place a construction compound on the fairway.
Police Officer Pension
Question No: 136 / 2006
Richard Barnes
What is the current surplus in Police Officer pensions retained by the Metropolitan Police

The Police Officer Pension Reserve currently amounts to £23.5m - having being reduced from
£45.5m by the use of £22m to support the budget during 2005/06.

Although new financing arrangements for police officer pensions were formally announced on
29th November 2005 and will be implemented from April 2006, there are still some risks to the
authority for which reserves will still be required.

The Authority will still retain responsibility for the cost of ill health retirements and injury
awards and the reserve will be needed to mitigate possible volatility in the numbers of these cases
(and their individual costs). Whilst reasonable estimates have been included in the budget for
these items, 2006/07 will be the first year of the new financing arrangements and there is a risk
that other unforeseen consequences of the changeover might emerge. It is thus proposed to
retain the reserve at its current level and to review it once the first year of changeover has been

Police Officer Ages
Question No: 137 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with a breakdown of officer ages, split by sex into the following age
bands? 18-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 50-60, 60+.

The table below provides the latest Metropolitan Police Service workforce statistics for
November 2005. It shows a standard age breakdown of police officers (by sex) that is one year
different to the requested range. I have been informed that providing an exact match would
require protracted re-calculation work to be carried out by the police.
Table 1: Police strength by age and gender (November 2005)

                  Total                          Female
              Number         %                Number    %
Lower than 20     13          0.0%                 4    0.1%
   20-24        2126          6.8%               674   11.0%
   25-29        5483         17.6%              1545   25.3%
   30-34        4991         16.0%              1224   20.1%
   35-39        5776         18.5%              1192   19.5%
   40-44        6211         19.9%               858   14.1%
   45-49        4835         15.5%               472    7.7%
   50-54        1478          4.7%               116    1.9%
    55-59            275     0.9%                   15      0.2%
 60 and over           0     0.0%                    0
    Total         31,187   100.0%                 6100     100%
Alcohol Fuelled Violence
Question No: 138 / 2006
Richard Barnes
The Home Office provided a grant of £421,000 to the Metropolitan Police Service for
distribution to the Boroughs to help tackle alcohol fuelled violence in the run up to
Christmas. Can you provide details of how much each Borough will receive (actual
amounts) and advise whether there is a specific formula for distribution? Is it based upon
population, offence statistics or the number of licensed premises in each Borough?

In December 2005 the Home Office issued funds to the Police Standards Unit (PSU) to help tackle
alcohol fuelled violence. The PSU allocated funds to police Borough Command Units (BCU)
based on level of crime in BCU areas. The 138 BCUs nationally with the highest levels of alcohol
fuelled violent crime were allocated funds on a sliding scale; all other BCUs were offered a £3,000
minimum payment.

A breakdown of payments made to the 32 London Boroughs are outlined below

Barking & Dagenham
Hammersmith and Fulham
Tower Hamlets
Waltham Forest
Kensington & Chelsea
Efficiency Savings
Question No: 139 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Each Borough Commander has been asked to find efficiency savings as part of the 2006/07
budget setting process. Can you provide me with a list of how much each Borough has
asked to save?

The detailed allocations within the MPS budget have not yet been finalised. A significant portion
of the MPS’ existing expenditure (ie. the 10% on Counter Terrorism) has not been re-confirmed
definitely by the Government; nor has there been any statement on the MPS’ Counter Terrorism
growth bid to fund the policing challenges of the new normality following the July bombings in
London. Until all this is decided, it is not possible for the MPS to make final decisions on what
each borough will be asked to save.
Territorial Policing
Question No: 140 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Wandsworth from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers
and PCSOs?

The attached table (Appendix C) shows annual Police strength by borough from 2000/01 to
2004/05. Police Community Safety Office strength for each year is also provided but is not
broken down by borough: workforce reports did not provide monthly borough Police Community
Safety Office strength until the start of 2005/06. As such this detail is provided in the appended
table from April to November 2005, which is the most up to date information available.
Territorial Policing
Question No: 141 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Barking & Dagenham from June 2000 onwards broken down between police
officers and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 142 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Barnet from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 143 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Bexley from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006*
Territorial Policing
Question No: 144 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Brent from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 145 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Bromley from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 146 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Camden from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 147 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Croydon from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 148 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Ealing from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 149 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Enfield from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and
Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 150 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Greenwich from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 151 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Hackney from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 152 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Hammersmith & Fulham from June 2000 onwards broken down between police
officers and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 153 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Haringey from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 154 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Harrow from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 155 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Havering from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 156 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Hillingdon from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 157 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Hounslow from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 158 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Islington from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 159 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Kensington & Chelsea from June 2000 onwards broken down between police
officers and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 160 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Kingston upon Thames from June 2000 onwards broken down between police
officers and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 161 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Lambeth from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 162 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Lewisham from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 163 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Merton from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 164 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Newham from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 165 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Redbridge from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 166 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Richmond upon Thames from June 2000 onwards broken down between police
officers and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 167 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Southwark from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 168 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Sutton from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers and

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 169 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Tower Hamlets from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers
and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 170 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Waltham Forest from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers
and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Territorial Policing
Question No: 171 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Can you provide me with month on month details of the Territorial Policing BOCU
strength in Westminster from June 2000 onwards broken down between police officers
and PCSOs?

Please refer to the response to 140/2006
Newham Parks Constabulary
Question No: 172 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Do you think it is appropriate for officers of Newham Parks Constabulary to operate
outside the boundaries of Newham Parks?

Newham Parks Constabulary are the responsibility of Newham Local Authority and are not MPS
employees. The Community Constabulary has different powers in parks and open spaces than
they have elsewhere. Whilst they have powers of arrest with regard to offences against park
regulations and open space legislation, they do not have such powers when they are outside these

I understand that a review of their current working practices took place and a number of
recommendations were made. Newham Parks Constabulary have contributed to the review, and
the full report is available on the LB Newham website.
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
Question No: 173 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued in London in 2004? Can you
break this down Borough by Borough?

The latest annual London ASBO figures are available for 2003 and 2004. These show a 205 per
cent increase in this period.

The latest monthly figures are available for January to June 2005, during which 224 ASBOs were
issued in London.

Borough details are provided in the table below.
           Area              2003 2004 Change % Jan – Jun 2005
GREATER LONDON                 96   293        205           224
Barking and Dagenham(1)         -     2         …              3
Barnet(2)                       1     9        800             4
Bexley(3)                       4     4          0             4
Brent(4)                        7     5        -29             5
Bromley(5)                      5     3        -40             2
Camden(6)                      21    36         71            19
City of London(7)               -     5         …              2
Croydon(8)                      6     7         17             1
Ealing(9)                       1    11       1000             3
Enfield(10)                     1     3        200             9
Greenwich(11)                   3     5         67             8
Hackney(12)                     1     5        400             6
Hammersmith & Fulham(13)        2     8        300             8
Haringey(14)                    -    17         …             13
Harrow(15)                      -     6         …              1
Havering(16)                    1     7        600            10
Hillingdon(17)                  -    12         …             19
Hounslow(18)                    5    17        240             9
Islington(19)                   7     5        -29             4
Kensington & Chelsea Royal
Borough(20)                     1     8        700             6
Kingston-on-Thames(21)          4     3        -25             2
Lambeth(22)                     -    16         …              9
Lewisham(23)                    3     8        167             6
Merton(24)                      2    11        450             4
Newham(25)                      -     5         …              3
Richmond upon Thames(26)        3     8        167             8
Southwark(27)                   6     7         17             9
Sutton(28)                      2     5        150            10
Tower Hamlets(29)               2    14        600            19
Waltham Forest(30)              -    12         …              5
Wandsworth(31)                  3     9        200             5
Westminster(32)                 5    20        300             8
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
Question No: 174 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued in London in 2005? Can you
break this down Borough by Borough?

Please refer to the response to 173/2006
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
Question No: 175 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many people in London have been returned to Court for breaching an Anti-social
Behaviour Order?

I have been informed that the only available Home Office statistics relate to the period between
June 2000 and December 2003. London Magistrates’ Courts reported issuing 146 ASBOs, of
which 46 were breached. This equates to 31 per cent, which was lower than the equivalent
national figure of 41 per cent.
Buncefield Depot
Question No: 176 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Metropolitan Police Officers were abstracted to assist Hertfordshire Police
following the fire at Buncefield Depot?

              Officers deployed to mutual aid to Hertfordshire Constabulary
                                     December 2005

              Date                     Insp      PS's      PC's       Total

              11.12.2005                   11     33        231         275

              12.12.2005                   13     42        294         349

              13.12.2005                   9      27        189         225

              14.12.2005                   6      18        126         150

              Total                        39     120       840         999
Special Constables
Question No: 177 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables have been recruited as part of the Shopwatch Scheme

I have been informed by the MPS that 57 individuals have been recruited.

A strong focus on negotiation with the retail industry in the second half of 2005 has meant that
now over 20 household name retail chains support the scheme at various levels and many are
about to start their recruitment campaigns, which should lead to a significant boost to applicant
numbers. Most of these stores expressed a wish to wait until after their peak trading periods of
October to January inclusive before working with the MPS on recruiting their staff into
Special Constables
Question No: 178 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables have been recruited as part of the Hospitalwatch Scheme

The development and negotiation phase of HospitalWatch, which is one strand of the MPS'
overall MSC Employer Support Programme, has only recently been completed.

On 7 December 2005, the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust launched its HospitalWatch
recruitment drive. Final plans are being made with two further Trusts to launch recruitment
drives before the end of February 2006 and negotiations are taking place with a number of other
Trusts and central NHS Security departments. Therefore no special constables have yet been
recruited but early indications show a strong level of interest from the NHS staff and
management communities.
Special Constables
Question No: 179 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables operated within London in 2000? Can you break this down
by Borough?

758 Special Constables operated within London in 2000. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
provide a BOCU breakdown.
Special Constables
Question No: 180 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables operated within London in 2001? Can you break this down
by Borough?

774 Special Constables operated within London in 2001. Unfortunately it is not possible to
provide a BOCU breakdown.
Special Constables
Question No: 181 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables operated within London in 2002? Can you break this down
by Borough?

680 Special Constables operated within London in 2002. Unfortunately it is not possible to
provide a BOCU breakdown.
Special Constables
Question No: 182 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables operated within London in 2003? Can you break this down
by Borough?

727 Special Constables operated in London in 2003. Unfortunately it is not possible to provide a
BOCU breakdown.
Special Constables
Question No: 183 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables operated within London in 2004? Can you break this down
by Borough?

726 Special Constables operated in London in 2004. Unfortunately it is not possible to provide a
BOCU breakdown.
Special Constables
Question No: 184 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many Special Constables operated within London in 2005? Can you break this down
by Borough?

Please refer to the table below. You will note the End of Year figure of 993 does not tally with the
Total of 884 on Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs) on the sheet.

This is due to members still in training or who have joined the BOCUs but who have not been
placed on MetHR.
                                       Number of MSC* - Totals
          B/OCU                Code
                                          B/OCU Return
CoW - Belgravia                AB                 12
Kensington & Chelsea            BS                27
Marine Support Unit        CO18(2)/MSU            11
CoW - West End Central         CD                 18
CoW - Westminster              CW                 20
CoW - Charing Cross            CX                 16
CoW - Marylebone               DM                 38
CoW - Paddington               DP                 25
Camden                         EK                 29
Hammersmith & Fulham           FH                 26
Hackney                        GD                 10
Tower Hamlets                  HT                 24
Heathrow                     ID/SO18              16
Waltham Forest                  JC                14
Redbridge                       JI                18
Havering                       KD                 31
Newham                         KF                 15
Barking and Dagenham           KG                 10
Lambeth                        LX                 25
Southwark                      MD                 12
Islington                       NI                23
Lewisham                       PL                 18
Bromley                        PY                 12
Harrow                         QA                 11
Brent                          QK                 25
Greenwich                      RG                 21
Royal Parks                    RO                 9
Bexley                         RY                 94
Financial Investigations      SCD6                2
Barnet                         SX                 50
TPHQ                          TPHQ                7
Tasking Unit                   TU                 4
Richmond upon Thames           TW                 22
Hounslow                       TX                 12
Kingston upon Thames           VK                 22
Merton                         VW                 15
Wandsworth                     WW                 17
Ealing                         XD                 15
Hillingdon                     XH                 20
Enfield                        YE                 17
Haringey                       YR                 20
Croydon                        ZD                 16
Sutton                         ZT                 5
TOTALS                                           854
               AVERAGE                                             19.86

*MSC – Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary
Special Constables
Question No: 185 / 2006
Richard Barnes
What happens to the free Travelcard/Oyster provided to Special Constables should they
decide to cease duties with the Metropolitan Police Service?

The free travel concession for Special Constables is provided by means of the constable’s Police
Warrant Card.

When anyone leaves the Metropolitan Police Service, the Warrant Card is returned and the free
travel concession ceases.
Special Constables
Question No: 186 / 2006
Richard Barnes
When Special Constables commence duties with the Metropolitan Police Service are they
provided with a standard Zone 1 ¿ 6 Travelcard/Oyster? If not, how is free travel on
London buses and the Underground defined?

Special Constables are not provided with a Travelcard season ticket. Free travel is permitted on
production of the Police Warrant Card. The free travel includes all TfL Tube, bus, DLR and
tram services.
Question No: 187 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many car-jackings took place in London in 2000? Can you break this down by

No figures are available for this offence for the year 2000.
Question No: 188 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many car-jackings took place in London in 2001? Can you break this down by

Please refer to Appendix D
Question No: 189 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many car-jackings took place in London in 2002? Can you break this down by

Please refer to Appendix D
Question No: 190 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many car-jackings took place in London in 2003? Can you break this down by

Please refer to Appendix D
Question No: 191 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many car-jackings took place in London in 2004? Can you break this down by

Please refer to Appendix D
Question No: 192 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many car-jackings took place in London in 2005? Can you break this down by

Please refer to Appendix D
Independent Advisory Groups
Question No: 193 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many London-wide Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) are funded by the
Metropolitan Police Service? Can you provide a list of these groups along with the amount
of funding received broken down year by year from 2000 to date?

8 Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) are funded by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
These are Race IAG, Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Advisory Group (LGBT AG),
Gypsy and Traveler Advisory Group, MPS Youth Advisory Group (MYAG), Disability IAG
(DIAG), Trident IAG (Gun crime in the black community), Sapphire IAG (rape and sexual
offending), Safeguarding Children IAG, Operation Blunt IAG (targeting knife crime). Funding
for each of these groups is detailed below:
Race IAG (2000)
LGBT AG (2000)
Gypsy and Traveler Advisory Group (2003)
MYAG (2003)
DIAG (2004)
Administered by the MPS Diversity Directorate, the above IAGs have an annual joint budget of
£100,000, which has remained static since 2000.
Trident IAG (2000)
2000: no financial information available
2001 – 02: £2,600
2002 – 03: £4,500
2003 – 04: £8,500
2004 – 05: £12,500 (incl. training and conference costs)
2005 – 06: £16,700 (incl. staff costs of 1 administration officer)
Sapphire IAG (2001)
No specific funding allocation. Minimal expense claims are met from the central Sapphire budget.
Safeguarding Children IAG (2003)
No specific funding allocation
Blunt IAG (2005)
No specific funding allocation.
Independent Advisory Groups
Question No: 194 / 2006
Richard Barnes
What is the allowance structure for an Independent Advisory Group (IAG)? Does this
differ from IAG to IAG?

In 2000, the then Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve declared that independent
advisors ‘should not be out of pocket’ for their participation and contributions on MPS IAGs and
that suitable remuneration should be offered. Thus, the IAG and Diversity Directorate, devised a
joint finance protocol, based upon the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ as set out in the Nolan
Committee’s First Report on Standards in Public Life’ The protocol detailed how advisors could make
claims, the processes involved, payment levels, authorisation and auditing procedures.

MPS IAG (Race), Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Advisory Group, Disability
Independent Advisory Group, Gypsy & Traveler Advisory Group, MPS Youth Advisory Group
are all offered remuneration, in sums ranging between £25 -£75 for attending a half a day’s
activity (equivalent to approx. 4 hrs.) and up to £150 for a whole day (equivalent to approx.8
hrs.). Operation Trident, Sapphire IAGs and Blunt IAG do not offer remuneration but reasonable
expenses for travel.

Not all IAG members claim for the time and expense they incur as members of MPS IAG’s
Independent Advisory Groups
Question No: 195 / 2006
Richard Barnes
What is the budget for Independent Advisory Groups (IAG) London-wide?

The MPS does not have a specific budget for Independent Advisory Groups. Funds are allocated
from the devolved budgets of the relevant directorates and departments.
Independent Advisory Groups
Question No: 196 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Do you agree that Independent Advisory Groups compromise their independence by being
funded directly by the Metropolitan Police Service?

No, the independence of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Advisory Groups is not compromised
by direct MPS funding. Members of Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) are non-police
persons that range from community representatives, academic researchers to voluntary sector
practitioners. Advice given by members of IAG is independent of the police and carries no
responsibility or liability for MPS service delivery or actions.

IAG members offer independent advise on MPS initiatives. This process ensures that the MPS
receives a critical appraisal of operations / initiatives from members that may have a better
insight into, and understanding of the communities policed by the MPS.

Expense and subsistence payments are offered by the MPS to some members of IAGs. Members
are not employees of the MPS or paid consultants; they volunteer their time and should not be

The MPS Directorate of Legal Services (DLS) recently carried out a review of the legal and
ethical position of offering IAG member’s expenses and subsistence payments. The review
concluded that ‘in offering reasonable expenses to IAG members and accounting for these payments, the
MPS is acting in an appropriate manner that allows members to retain their independence’
Metropolitan Police Authority
Question No: 197 / 2006
Richard Barnes
Would you use powers to appoint independent members to the Metropolitan Police
Authority as outlined in the ODPM Consultation on Mayoral Powers or would you prefer
an interview/selection process based on merit to avoid calls of cronyism?
The ODPM consultation on the review of GLA powers does not propose a new method of
appointing members of the MPA, but merely makes the point that the Chair of the MPA has a
role in the selection of independent members. I believe that independent members of the MPA
should continue to be appointed on merit following open recruitment to ensure that the MPA is in
the best possible position to carry out its functions and responsibilities.
Cultural Organisations
Question No: 198 / 2006
Richard Barnes
DA 1196 dated 22nd December 2003 approved “the procurement of a consultant that will
carry out research into benchmarking the provision of disability access (to cultural
organisations and their services), to include a detailed study of 60 major cultural
organisations across the sector in both inner and outer London, for a value up to £20,000.”
Who conducted this research, which organisations were studied, what was the final cost
and is a copy of their findings available for inspection?

The report is now available on the GLA website at:

Shape, the arts and disability agency for London conducted the research. The cost was £20,000
in total. The list of organisations that contributed to the research can be found at Appendix IV at
the end of the report mentioned above.
Registered Sex Offenders
Question No: 199 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many registered sex offenders resided in London in 2000? Can this figure be broken
down by Borough?

I have been informed that this information has not been recorded by the MPS.
Registered Sex Offenders
Question No: 200 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many registered sex offenders resided in London in 2001? Can this figure be broken
down by Borough?

In the period April 2001-March 2002, a total of 1847 registered sex offenders resided in London.

The MPS has informed me that there are no figures available by Borough.
Registered Sex Offenders
Question No: 201 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many registered sex offenders resided in London in 2002? Can this figure be broken
down by Borough?
In the period April 2002-March 2003 a total of 2085 registered sex offenders resided in London.

The MPS has informed me that there are no figures available by Borough.
Registered Sex Offenders
Question No: 202 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many registered sex offenders resided in London in 2003? Can this figure be broken
down by Borough?

For the period April 2003-March 2004 a total of 2272 registered sex offenders resided in London.

The MPS has informed that there are no figures available by Borough.
Registered Sex Offenders
Question No: 203 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many registered sex offenders resided in London in 2004? Can this figure be broken
down by Borough?

In the period April 2004-March 2005 a total of 2657 registered sex offenders resided in London.

The MPS has informed me that there are no figures available by Borough.
Registered Sex Offenders
Question No: 204 / 2006
Richard Barnes
How many registered sex offenders resided in London in 2005? Can this figure be broken
down by Borough?

In the period 1 April to 31 November 2005 a total of 2964 registered sex offenders resided in

I have been informed that figures can be broken down by Borough but are not in the public
domain. This is a Strategic Management Board decision that areas will not release individual
borough figures. In addition, the figures held are not ratified, as the IT system (ViSOR) is not yet
configured to produce such data.
Police Recruits
Question No: 205 / 2006
Tony Arbour
How have the entry qualifications for police recruits changed in each year since 2000?
There have been no changes to the entry qualifications for police recruits since 2000. It remains
the case that no formal educational qualifications are required, as all applicants are subject to an
assessment centre.
Entry Examinations to the Metropolitan Police Service
Question No: 206 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Please detail changes to entry examinations to the Metropolitan Police Service in each
year since 2000.

In 2000 the entry examination for potential police officers consisted of the following elements:

      Interview (pass or fail)
      Police initial Recruitment Test – total pass score of 230 required across 5 elements
      Written Exercise (pass score of 15)

The entry examination remained unchanged until 1 August 2002 when the Home Office
withdrew one element of the Police Initial Recruitment Test and therefore from that date the
entry examination consisted of the following elements:

      Interview (pass score of 22)
      Police Initial Recruitment Test – total pass score of 168 required across 4 elements
      Written Exercise (pass score 12)

On 15 April 2003 the Home Office made further changes to the Police Initial Recruitment Test,
the removal of two further elements, and this resulted in the entry examination consisting of the
following elements:

      Interview (pass score 22)
      Police Initial Recruitment Test – total pass score of 83 required across 2 elements
      Written Exercise (pass score 12)

In September 2003 the Home Office introduced the National Recruitment Standards for all
applicants wishing to become police officers. The assessment centre comprises the following

      Interview
      4 interactive exercises
      2 written exercises
      2 elements of the old Police Initial Recruitment Test (verbal logical reasoning and
       numerical logical reasoning)

The competencies tested at the assessment centre are as follows:

      Respect for race and diversity
      Teamworking
      Community and customer focus
      Effective communication
      Oral communication
      Written communication
      Problem solving
      Personal responsibility
      Resilience

The overall pass mark was set at 50% in all elements with the exception of written
communication where the pass mark was set at 44%. In addition the assessment in each area was
marked on an A-D basis and no Ds are allowed.

In June 2005 the Home Office raised the overall pass mark to 60% in all elements with the
exception of written communication where the pass mark was maintained at 44%. Once again the
assessment in each area was marked on an A-D basis and no Ds are allowed.

Entry Examinations to the Metropolitan Police Service
Question No: 207 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Please detail changes in pass rates in entrance examinations to the Metropolitan Police
Service in each year since 2000 in terms of gender and ethnicity.

The table below details average pass rates at National Recruitment Standards (NRS) events for
each year 2003 to 2005. However, when viewing this data is must be noted that only three NRS
events were held in 2003 as it was introduced in September of that year, and that in July 2005 the
pass mark for the NRS was raised from 50% to 60%, as shown in the last two columns.

                                 2005       2005 (Pass     2005 (Pass
            2003      2004
                               (Overall)    mark 50%)      mark 60%)
  BME       38%       64%        50%           58%            35%
 White      63%       84%        78%           86%            62%
 Female     66%       85%        75%           80%            65%
  Male      54%       69%        57%           66%            39%
 Overall    58%       77%        66%           73%            51%

Please note that data prior to 2003 is less systematically recorded and therefore not easily
Police Recruits
Question No: 208 / 2006
Tony Arbour
What percentage of police recruits (by gender and ethnicity) have entered Hendon
training college with more than 3 A levels in each year since 2000?

The information below provides a breakdown of police recruits that have entered Hendon
training college with at least three A levels during 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. MPS data for 2000
and 2001 is insufficient and therefore cannot be provided.

                         2002            2003             2004              2005

 BME male             16.19%             18.49%          20.16%            20.0%

 BME female           24.29%             27.78%          26.80%            40.68%

 White male           11.64%             10.68%           9.11%            21.44%

 White female         24.26%             17.98%          22.22%            32.94%

 Total                14.84%             13.84%          15.88%            25.0%

Police Recruits
Question No: 209 / 2006
Tony Arbour
What percentage of police recruits (by gender and ethnicity) have been university
graduates in each year since 2000?

The table below provides details of the percentage of university graduate police recruits since
                   2000          2001      2002        2003        2004        2005
 BME male        26.32%         25.0%    17.0%      14.06%        17.79%    17.39%

 BME female      30.0%          28.57%   25.71%     18.89%        22.68%    35.59%

 White male      23.29%         14.77%   13.26%     8.53%         7.93%     17.15%
                 33.01%         24.69%   27.39%     14.54%        17.35%    27.99%
 Total           25.51%         17.49%   16.68%     10.92%        13.14%    20.65%
Metropolitan Police Service Training School
Question No: 210 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Can you provide me with details of the minimum qualification levels for candidates to
enter the Metropolitan Police Service training school at Hendon?

No formal educational qualifications are required as outlined in my answer to question 205/2006.
The minimum qualification levels are the following:

·        Paper sift against set criteria (convictions, residency, nationality, etc.)
·        Competency based questions within the application form
·        National Recruitment Standards assessment centre
·        Medical
·        Physical fitness test
·        References
·        Security vetting

All of the above elements have to be passed before an applicant can enter Training School.
Metropolitan Police Service Training School
Question No: 211 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Can you provide me with details of the drop-out/failure rate of trainees at Hendon Police
Training College for each year from 2000 broken down by age, sex and ethnicity?
The percentage of students who have been unsuccessful1 within Metropolitan Police Foundation
Training at Hendon Police Training College and other sites, broken down by gender, is as

                20002         2001          2002          2003          2004           20053
    Male        8.5%          9.8%          12.4%         9.1%          6.5%           2.5%
    Female      6.0%          6.5%          8.2%          7.1%          3.4%           1.6%

The percentage of students who have been unsuccessful1 within Metropolitan Police Foundation
Training at Hendon Training College and other sites, broken down by ethnicity, is as follows:

                20002         2001          2002          2003          2004           20053
    Black and   13.0%         13.1%         16.6%         15.7%         11.6%          2.3%
    White       7.7%          8.8%          10.9%         7.4%          4.0%           2.2%

Data broken down by age is currently unavailable.
Trainee PCSOs
Question No: 212 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Can you provide me with details of the drop-out/failure rates of trainee PCSOs for each
year since their inception broken down by age, sex and ethnicity?

PCSO training courses commenced in December 2002. They were held at various sites around the
Metropolitan Police area. Data for Drop out rates of students is not available for years before
2004, when training provision was amalgamated at the Hendon site.

During the financial year 2004/5 a total of 678 PCSO underwent training. 7 students resigned
during the training course. Of these, 4 were male and 3 female; none were from black and
minority ethnic communities.

During the current financial year 2005/6 so far a total of 306 PCSO's have undergone training,
with 4 students resigning during the course. Of these, 3 were females from black and ethnic
minority communities and 1 was male from a black and ethnic minority community.

Data is unavailable in relation to the break down of age for those students resigning during
Police Constables
Question No: 213 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Can you provide me with details of the drop-out/failure rate of police Constables still
within their probationary period for each year from 2000 broken down by age, sex and

The figures and analysis presented below are for drop-outs and failures and include Probationers
resigning voluntarily or transferring to other forces, together with those required to resign or
dismissed (including dismissals under regulation 13). .

  distribution of
  Police Officer
  Age                 2000       2001      2002      2003       2004 2005 to Dec
  24 and under          26         26        48         34        40           9
  25-29                 15         14        26         21        37          19
  30-39                 10         19        33      33.65        32          22
  40+                    1                    4          3        12           9
  totals                52         59       111      91.65       121          59
Age distribution of drop-outs and failures is generally biased towards younger Officers, a
reflection on their predominance as a proportion of overall probationer numbers:

      In January to December 2000, 26 of these leavers were under 25, 15 between 25 and 30, 10
       aged between 30-39, and 1 was over 40. In 2001, 26 of the leavers were under 25, 14
       between 25-29 and 19 between 30-39, with no probationers over age 40 leaving.

      In 2002, 48 of the leavers were under 25, 26 aged 25-29, 33 aged 30-39, and 4 aged over

      For 2003, figures are 34 Officers under 25, 21 aged 25-29, 33 aged 30-39 and 3 over 40.

      In 2004, 41 probationary leavers were aged under 25, 37 aged 25-29, 32 aged 30-39 and 12
       over 40.
      For 2005, loss figures across all age ranges were significantly lower – 9 Officers under 25,
       19 aged 25-29, 22 aged 30-39 and 9 over 40.


      Gender distribution of these leavers in 2000 was 43 male and 9 female

     In 2001 this was 48 male and 11 female. Figures for 2002 were 99 male and 12 female, in
      2003 73 male and 18 female, in 2004 100 male and 21 female and in 2005 41 male and 18
   o In ethnic terms, 6 of the probationary leavers in 2000 were from BME backgrounds, 46

   o Figures for 2001 were 3 BME and 56 non-BME

   o 2002 14 BME and 97 non-BME
   o 2003 6 BME and 85.65 non-BME

   o 2004 20 BME and 101 non-BME

   o for 2005 18 BME and 41 non-BME.
BME/non BME/Female and Male Probationer Attrition Rates Dec 02 to Dec 05.

The data of total force strength prior to 2002 was not collected in such a way that attrition rates
by percentage can be easily tabulated. However, in relation to attrition rates in the MPS and
diversity, the following points can be ascertained:

   o Overall, and except for females, whose attrition rates have slightly increased by 0.6 % in
     the three-year period studied, attrition rates for all categories are moving downwards. It
     should be noted that the small number of females, in relation to males, might be the cause
     of this slight spike in attrition rates for women, rather than an indication of a problem.
   o Contrary to national findings, the attrition rate for females in the MPS has, over the
     three-year timeframe, shown that the MPS is more likely to retain female officers than
   o It can be seen from the above table that attrition rates for BMEs and non-BMEs, by
                                                                     percent of total strength,
                                                                     have dropped significantly
                     Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05                     from December 2002 and
       BME              6.6%       1.6%       3.7%    0.2%           2005.
       Non BME          4.2%       2.7%       2.8%    0.1%       o It should also be noted that
       Female           2.2%       2.3%       1.9%    2.8%           the attrition percentages for
       Male             5.0%       2.7%       3.4%    3.7%           BMEs and non-BMEs,
                                                                     which were highly divergent
     in 2002 are now converging.
   o As expected, in an organisation where retention rates are so high and there has been such
     a growth in recruitment, attrition rates, in regard to age, tend to be clustered in the
     younger age groups. Thus, the attrition rates are highest amongst the 20-24 years of age
     category, followed by those in the 25-29 category. The figures for those ‘forced to resign’
     have remained consistently low; the highest number in this category is 3 in 2003.
   o Voluntary resignations rose steadily from a low of 51 in 2000, 52 in 2001, 98 in 2002, 72 in
     2003, 116 in 2004 and then dropped back considerably to 54 in 2005. Post 9/11 the MPS
     was forced to re-evaluate its position on recruitment. Prior to this the MPS police
     workforce had been shrinking, the threat of terrorism placed the organisation under
     considerable pressure to swell its ranks in order to be able to respond to possible terrorist
     threats. This pressure is reflected in the spiking of voluntary resignations in 2004. It
     would appear that equilibrium in voluntary resignations has now been re-established.
   o The percentage of voluntary resignation for BMEs in relation to non-BME rates
       fluctuated between 5% and 32% (2000-11%; 2001- 5%; 2002-12%; 2003- 6%; 2004-17%;
       2005-32%). However, it must be borne in mind that numerically this represents less than
       20 individual BME resignations per year. The relatively smaller number of BMEs in
       relation to non-BMEs in the MPS means that even very few resignations by BMEs can
       make a substantial difference to percentages.

Junction of Warwick and Old Brompton Road
Question No: 214 / 2006
Angie Bray
TfL, by its own admission, recognises the need to implement new safety measures at the
junction of Warwick Road and Old Brompton Road, after 17 collisions and 23 casualties in
the last 3 years. A detailed study was carried out as long ago as 2004, which suggests that
the problem was recognised over a year ago. Can the Mayor assure me that this site will be
given priority for the London Road Safety Unit’s programme for this coming year, so that
we will not have to wait until 2007 (i.e. three years after the safety study) for the junction
to be made safe for pedestrians and road users alike?

TfL shares your concern in regard to the safety record at this junction, particularly for
pedestrians. Since Peter Hendy wrote to you in November 2005, TfL has undertaken an in-depth
analysis of the scope for signaled pedestrian crossings of all arms of the junction. Regrettably,
this cannot be achieved without introducing major delays to traffic and the four bus routes that
operate through the junction, with consequential impacts for the environment generally and risk
of casualty migration to elsewhere on the route.

TfL’s London Road Safety Unit is currently completing its Programme for 06/07 and will
undertake a further examination of potential measures to improve this junction.
Question No: 215 / 2006
Angie Bray
Will you give your assurance that so long as you are Mayor, motorbikes will never be
eligible to pay the Congestion Charge?

The primary objective of Congestion Charging is to reduce congestion in Central London. As I
stated in March 2005 powered two-wheelers do not contribute significantly to congestion and as
such they are exempt from the Charge. For this reason I will not remove the discount for powered
Hybrid Vehicles
Question No: 216 / 2006
Angie Bray
Why is there any debate about larger hybrid vehicles, such as the Lexus RX400h, losing
their Congestion Charge exempt status? The RX400h meets Euro IV standards and the
present Powershift Register states that vehicles must meet Euro III standards. Surely the
Mayor wants to encourage drivers to buy and use low-emission vehicles by providing
Congestion Charge exempt status for motorists? Is this not further proof that the
Congestion Charge is first and foremost a tax rather than a genuine attempt to improve
London’s air quality?

The Powershift register, managed by the Energy Saving Trust on behalf of TfL, determines
eligibility for the Congestion Charging discount. The Lexus RX400h has recently been approved
and is now on the register. Therefore, owners can now apply for the 100% alternative fuel
discount. But the carbon emissions (CO2) for the Lexus are still relatively high compared to other

TfL is undertaking a comprehensive review of the alternative fuels discount and is considering
different approaches which would encourage the uptake of vehicles with better emissions
standards. Any proposals to improve the alternative fuel discount, would of course be subject to
full public and stakeholder consultation.

It should be remembered that the Congestion Charge is first and foremost intended to reduce
congestion in central London.
Congestion Charge
Question No: 217 / 2006
Angie Bray
Do you think it is appropriate for Capita to run the congestion charge while at the same
time owning Equita - one of the congestion charge bailiff firms?

I am satisfied there is no conflict of interests. The two contracts - for the operation and
administration of the Congestion Charge, and for the provision of debt recovery services - were
awarded by TfL as a result of entirely separate competitive procurement processes conforming to
European Union requirements.
Court Case Involving Equita
Question No: 218 / 2006
Angie Bray
Is the Mayor aware of the recent landmark victory in the small claims court against Equita
for artificially inflating the rates it levied for the recovery of Congestion-Charge debts?
Can the Mayor explain what monitoring procedures TfL maintains over the activities of
the bailiffs it employs in order to to prevent maladministration, and why they failed in this

Yes I am aware of the recent outcome of the ‘Taxation Order’ taken against Equita. A Taxation
Order is defined in the Distress for Rent Rules Act 1988 and states that: “In the case of any
difference as to fees, charges and expenses between any of the parties, the fees, charges and
expenses shall upon application be taxed by the Registrar of the county court of the district where
the distress is levied, and he may make such order as he thinks fit as to the costs of the taxation.”
In this particular instance the Judge took the decision, based on the verbal evidence provided by
the appellant, that the letters were not sent and visits not undertaken by Equita. This is despite
the appellant admitting that he had received Penalty correspondence relating to the case, which
he did not respond to thinking that they were receipts. Furthermore Equita were unable to
submit more detailed evidence relating to the visits undertaken by the bailiff in question as he had
left their employ and was unavailable to support their defence. During 2005, Equita introduced a
system for electronically recording visits, which is admissible in court, and which would be used
to defend any subsequent cases of this kind.

In light of the outcome, and despite the fact that TfL are satisfied that Equita did send the letters
and undertake the visits charged for, they are currently working with all their contracted bailiffs,
to further enhance the evidence available to defend any such claims.

TfL undertake monthly monitoring activities ensuring that the four contracted bailiff companies
are applying charges, processing cases and taking enforcement action in line with their contracts
and legislation. Where a bailiff company fails to do so, TfL will investigate and take appropriate
action. This could result ultimately in the termination of the contract with that bailiff. To date
very few instances of failures by the bailiff companies to comply with their contracts and
legislation have been identified. Where failures have been identified, these have been satisfactorily
and promptly addressed.
Number Plate Theft
Question No: 219 / 2006
Angie Bray
Can you tell me how many number plates have been stolen in the last five years. Broken
down by borough and by year?

                     Stolen number plates, MPS by division, 2001 -

                                 Division                2003   2004 2005
                                (Belgravia)                0      12   26
                          Kensington and Chelsea           0     116 136
                            (West End central)             0      15   16
                             (Charing Cross)               0       6    6
                               (Marylebone)                0      31   36
                               (Paddington)                0      44   54
                                  Camden                   0     113 151
                         Hammersmith and Fulham            0      80  117
                                 Hackney                   1     155 207
                             Tower Hamlets                 1     194 324
                                 Heathrow                  0       8   18
                             Waltham Forest                0     200 380
                                Redbridge                  0     280 422
                                 Havering                  1     156 296
                                 Newham                   1  336 763
                          Barking and Dagenham            0  126 248
                                 Lambeth                  0  120 200
                                Southwark                 1  164 244
                                 Islington                3  111    92
                                Lewisham                  1  196 285
                                 Bromley                  0  250 307
                                  Harrow                  0  238 310
                                   Brent                  0  146 281
                                Greenwich                 0  181 312
                                  Bexley                  0  174 244
                                  Barnet                  0  233 435
                                Richmond                  0   66    92
                                Hounslow                  0  222 248
                                 Kingston                 0   59    70
                                  Merton                  1  100 188
                               Wandsworth                 3  124 168
                                  Ealing                  0  228 421
                                Hillingdon                0  214 355
                                  Enfield                 2  204 290
                                 Haringey                 3  146 277
                                 Croydon                  1  370 582
                                  Sutton                  0   74   162
                               Grand Total               19 5,492 8,763

Please note data was not recorded by the MPS in the periods 2001 and 2002.

Zone 1 Travelcard
Question No: 220 / 2006
Angie Bray
Why has the Zone 1 Travelcard been abolished, does this include the oystercard?

The new January fares involved two major changes in Zone 1. The Zone 1 only Travelcard
season was withdrawn and the Zone 1 Oyster pay as you go fare on the Tube was reduced from
£1.70 to £1.50 – Oyster bus fares were also frozen at £1/80p.

TfL believes that, for those previously using Zone 1 travelcards, the choice now offered of Oyster
pre-pay or a Zone 1 and 2 travelcard gives an appropriate range of tickets to reflect the wide
range of frequency of travel within this particular group.

Transport for London estimates that up to half of those who were Zone 1 Travelcard holders will
pay little more or even less than in 2005 by switching to Oyster pay as you go. These are people
making, say, 10 Tube trips and 5 bus trips a week. For such customers, the cost per trip will be,
on average, about £1.50 per ride.

Other former zone 1 Travelcard holders are typically intensive travellers making around 20 trips
a week. As a result, the Zone 1-2 ticket at £22 per week provides a cost per ride of just over £1.
This is broadly in line with the rates most Travelcard users pay and is substantially less than the
Tube pay as you go fare per journey.
Congestion Charge
Question No: 221 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Would the Mayor outline what provision for payment of the Congestion Tax is available to
law abiding people who do not usually drive in to London but find themselves
unexpectedly having to make a car journey into central London and then being detained
after midnight?

I agree that Congestion Charging scheme could be improved to allow customers to pay the
charge after midnight on the day of travel.

To this end, I confirmed in September last year that the introduction of a ‘pay next day’ facility
would be introduced in September 2006. The charge will be £8 up to midnight on the day of
travel and £10 up to midnight on the day after travel. TfL intend that the introduction of pay
next day be brought forward to this June and they are consulting on this variation.
Question No: 222 / 2006
Tony Arbour
What is the longest permitted time that a bus driver may leave his engine running at a bus
stand? Does this apply to all hours of the day? Does this apply to buses at Kew Retail
Park? What action is taken by TfL to ensure that drivers abide by the rules? What action
is taken by TfL against drivers who flout the rules?

Operators are contractually required to ensure that bus drivers keep their engines switched off at
all bus stands and at all times of the day and night.

TfL is very much aware of its responsibilities as a good neighbour in this respect, and carefully
investigates any complaint of this nature. TfL carries out ad – hoc and targeted monitoring of bus
stands to identify any drivers not respecting the rules. TfL also provide signage at bus stands to
remind drivers to switch off engines and has recently issued a poster to all bus garages to
emphasise to drivers the importance of complying.

If a driver is reported leaving an engine running, by an official or a member of the public, TfL
would expect the operator to take action to ensure the driver does not break the rules again.
Thames Gateway Development
Question No: 223 / 2006
Tony Arbour
What action is the Mayor taking to ensure that the Thames Gateway Development meets
its 2016 target of 120,000 homes?

The target of 12,000 homes is the ODPM target for the whole of the Thames Gateway; the
corresponding target for the London section of the Gateway is 60,000.

My strategic planning policies, as set out in the London Plan and the draft East London
sub-regional development framework, are designed to ensure that appropriate sites are identified
and bought forward for housing development. The GLA Housing Capacity study
also sets out potential for future housing growth in the area between 2004 and 2027.

My officers provide policy and practical support to help bring forward housing development e.g.
the Architecture and Urbanism Unit and Planning Decisions Unit provide design advice and
guidance for major planning applications; and the LDA is actively involved in bringing forward
development sites and skills training. Through the London Thames Gateway Steering Group,
my officers meet other key partners concerned with housing to identify priorities and address
barriers to delivery.
Thames Gateway
Question No: 224 / 2006
Tony Arbour
What action is the Mayor taking to ensure that the Thames Gateway does not become
another soulless dormitory town?

Significant new developments in the London Thames Gateway must be about more than just
providing houses from which residents commute to work and play elsewhere: they must also
make provision for job opportunities, good transport links, high quality schools and hospitals,
shops, parks and open spaces, i.e. all the factors that contribute to creating sustainable

My officers work with a range of key partners through the London Thames Gateway Steering
Group to ensure that this approach is applied to policy and other development. My strategic
planning policies as set out in the London Plan and supplementary planning guidance make clear
that sustainable communities are the long term goal, and I will direct refusal for any
developments which do not reach acceptable standards.
London Plan Review
Question No: 225 / 2006
Tony Arbour
In your report Reviewing the London Plan, you state in your foreword, “On the issue of
climate change I am determined to bring forward radical changes to policy” you further
state in Part 3 - Key Areas for review you make climate change you state “ This will be one
of the most important and extensive areas of policy development in the Review and a new
over-arching policy on Climate Change will be included”. Would it not be more
appropriate to be focusing on issues such as affordable housing and do you not think that
placing such emphasis on this issue will put developers off house building?

The Statement of Intent says that it is a priority for stronger policies on climate change to be
included in the plan. It also says that the London Plan affordable housing targets will be

This will not put off housing development, but as with all planning matters a balance needs to be
struck between objectives.
Meeting with Diane Abbott
Question No: 226 / 2006
Bob Neill
When was your meeting with Diane Abbott scheduled and what was its purpose?

My meeting on 1 December with Diane Abbott MP was scheduled some weeks ahead of it taking
place and the purpose was to discuss the London Schools and the Black Child conference and the
implications of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games for Hackney.
Lesbian and Gay Museum Project
Question No: 227 / 2006
Bob Neill
In your 25 January Assembly MQT: Mayor’s Report you state: “I have agreed that the
provision carried forward for the Lesbian and Gay Museum Project (£24,000) is returned
to the General Fund Reserve.” Why has this occurred? Has the Museum project collapsed
or is there another reason?

I support the proposal to develop a lesbian and gay museum, which is being progressed by an
independent trust with charitable status. Money was earmarked for an independent feasibility
report. It was agreed with the organisers via meetings with them, that this research was not
needed as they had already carried out most of this work. Therefore the GLA feasibility study was
not commissioned. The budget allocated was therefore not required.
Adult Education, Bromley
Question No: 228 / 2006
Bob Neill
Is the Mayor aware of the recent changes to government funding for adult education,
which risk placing this valuable service beyond the reach of a great many Londoners, such
as my own constituents in the London Borough of Bromley, where Council Officers predict
rising fees, diminishing concessions and dwindling choices for adult learners? Will the
Mayor join me in condemning cuts in adult education and call on the government to
rethink this harmful approach?
I am aware of the cuts to adult education that you refer to and the implications that this has for
Londoners. This is why I am seeking further powers over the skills budgets for London which
are currently unaccountable to London and do not reflect the needs of the communities that they
are supposed to serve. I look forward to the Assembly Member writing to ODPM in support of
my proposals in the London Powers debate.
Cost of RMT Strike
Question No: 229 / 2006
Bob Neill
What was the cost to London’s economy of the latest RMT industrial action?

The industrial action had little or no impact on LU services. All LU lines ran a mostly good
service during the period (except Northern line on one Monday).

The strikes at New Year and on the 8/9 January only served to inconvenience Londoners.
Although passenger numbers on the Underground were slightly down, there is no evidence to
suggest that this has had a significant effect on London's economy.

I am pleased that London Underground will proceed with the implementation of the shorter
working week for all station staff on February 5, as planned. This is a fair deal and ensures safe
staffing levels at all London Underground stations
Number of RMT Members on Strike
Question No: 230 / 2006
Bob Neill
How many RMT members came out on strike on 31 December 2005/1 January 2006 and
8/9 January 2006 respectively?

31 December 2005/1 January 2006             877
8/9 January 2006                            1016

This represented 15% and 19% of LU station staff respectively.

London Underground (LU) employees are not obliged to disclose their union membership, hence
the assumption that all staff who took part in the industrial action were RMT members and not
from any other trades union.
Safer Neighbourhood Teams Members
Question No: 231 / 2006
Bob Neill
Will the Mayor confirm that all existing Safer Neighbourhood Teams will remain at 6
members throughout the proposed accelerate roll-out to the remaining wards in London?

Yes. The MPS has confirmed they have no intention to transfer resources from existing Safer
Neighbourhood Teams.
Cost of New Year’s Eve 2005 Celebrations
Question No: 232 / 2006
Bob Neill
What was the cost of the New Year’s Eve celebrations to the GLA and/or the functional
bodies and from which budget heads was this met?

The total cost of staging the New Years Eve fireworks display was £1.1million. Of this £1
million was funded by the LDA from its tourism budget and £100,000 from the GLA’s Events
Cost of China in London 2006
Question No: 233 / 2006
Bob Neill
What is the estimated cost of China in London 2006 to GLA and functional bodies’ funds
and from which budget heads will this be met?

China in London 2006 will be the largest celebration of Chinese culture in the capital. It will run
between late January and the end of March, and will include over 100 events and activities across
all parts of London. In addition to its role in London itself the annual Chinese New Year
celebration in London has been significantly expanded this year. The aim of this is to promote
London in China itself through Chinese media coverage of events in London.

The current estimated cost is £400-450k (exclusive of VAT). Of this £40,000 has been allocated
from the GLA Events for London budget and £25,000 has been allocated to he Shanghai on
Screen festival from the London Development Agency. The remaining costs will be met through
the London Unlimited programme for the international promotion of London run from Visit
London and funded by the LDA.

This programme of events will celebrate the contribution to London’s success and vibrancy made
by the capitals Chinese communities as well as supporting delivery of the priority set out in the
EDS to ensure London is appropriately placed with regard to key emerging markets.
Cost of Russian Winter Festival
Question No: 234 / 2006
Bob Neill
What was the cost to the GLA and/or the functional bodies of the Russian Winter Festival
and from which budget heads was this met?

The Russian Winter Festival secured two days of all-day news coverage of London on Russian
television – achieving important promotion London in a key emerging market. The Festival was
attended by over 73,000 people. The budget was met as follows:

 - £20,000 from the budget of the Strategic Project and Policy Evaluation team in the Mayor’s
Office Economic and Business Policy Directorate
- £96,359 from London Unlimited programme run from Visit London and funded by the London
Development Agency.

London Unlimited’s mission is to create economic benefit for London by strategically promoting
London as an international destination, across a range of sectors, to multiple audiences.

This event supports delivery of the priority set out in the Economic Development Strategy
ensuring London us appropriately placed with regards to key emerging markets.
Cost of Peace Reception, 7 December 2006
Question No: 235 / 2006
Bob Neill
What was the cost of the Peace Reception on 7 December 2005 and from what budget head
was this met?

The cost of the Peace Reception on 7 December 2005 was £6569.

The budget was met from the International Team.
Invitation List for December 2005 Peace Reception
Question No: 236 / 2006
Bob Neill
Will the Mayor provide a full list of organisations and individuals invited to the Peace
Reception on 7 December 2005?

Organisations that participated in the Peace Reception held on 7 December 2005 were the
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (“CND”) and the Stop the War campaign (“STW”).

The list of invited individuals was pulled together from the databases of each of these
organisations. In addition, some individuals with a known interest in this area whose details are
held by the GLA were also invited. The list of individuals identifies some members and
supporters of CND and STW, as well as some individuals with an interest in this area whose
details are held by the GLA. Guests at the event included key London stakeholders including
parliamentary representatives, business groups, trade unions and celebrities who are supportive
of peace initiatives

The views of the organisations listed above on disclosure of the identity of invited individuals
were sought (in response to a request by a member of the public), and one organisation indicated
that it was not happy for the names of its members in attendance at the reception to be disclosed.
Accordingly, whilst I am more than happy to disclose the identity of the organisations involved
(as above), I am withholding the information as to the identity of individuals, in reliance on the
exemption contained in section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am treating the
information as exempt under s40(2)(b) of the Act, in that condition (a) of section 40(3) is met, in
that publication would be a breach of the Data Protection Principles (1 and/or 2) and in some
cases, section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
London Waterways Commission
Question No: 237 / 2006
Bob Neill
Will the Mayor provide full details of the proposed membership, terms of reference,
budget and administrative arrangements for the London Waterways Commission?

As stated in question 128 the London Waterway s Commission does not have an annual budget,
rather it will have to bid for funds for any projects it wishes to promote, these bids may be made to
the GLA or other organisations and will have to compete for resources. Administrative support
for the Commission will be provided by officers in the GLA Policy and Partnership Directorate
and by TfL, and thus will include such expenses as mail outs and booking/refreshments at

Full details can be obtained from Kevin Reid in Policy & Partnerships, ext.4991.
Funds Provided to Opponents of the Thames Gateway Bridge
Question No: 238 / 2006
Bob Neill
Will the Mayor provide a full breakdown of how the £50,000 allocated to opponents of
the Thames Gateway Bridge was spent and how, and by whom, was the expenditure

Darren Johnson wrote to TfL advising that he would engage specialist firms for the objectors,
manage relationships with the consultants and take responsibility for satisfactory completion of
their work. On this assurance TfL agreed that the invoices would be authorised for payment by
the TGB project team when confirmation of receipt and acceptance of the reports was received
from Mr Johnson.

The fund for opponents’ consultants was allocated as follows:
 £10,000 to Phil Goodwin for analysis of the traffic model
 £2,000 to John Elliot for analysis of whether a serious assessment was made of the local need
   for access to services and jobs through sustainable forms of transport
 £9,200 to Riki Therivel , and
 £5,000 to John Whitelegg for consideration of employment and economic impacts of the
 £5,500 to Keith Buchan for a study of the national and regional policy context
 £6,000 to Kerry Hamilton for a critique of the TGB Consultation Report
 £10,000 to Mark McCarthy for consideration of the health impacts of TGB
 £2,200 to Philip Connelly for analysis of environmental issues
Meeting with Minister for London on 20 December 2005
Question No: 239 / 2006
Bob Neill
What was discussed at your meeting with the Minister for London on 20 December 2005?

I had a very constructive meeting with the Minister for London Jim Fitzpatrick MP on 20
December 2005. They discussed the Government’s review of the GLA’s powers, the London
Plan, tall buildings, Thames Gateway, London weighting, review of Fire and Rescue Service
firefighter targets, London Olympics 2012, and the Notting Hill Carnival.
Meeting with Ambassador of the Russian Federation
Question No: 240 / 2006
Bob Neill
What was discussed at your meeting with the Ambassador of the Russian Federation on 3
January 2006?

The meeting between me and Yury Fedotov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation on 3rd
January was primarily set up as an introductory meeting to meet the new Russian Ambassador.

At the meeting other topics of discussion included the increasing importance of London as a
centre for Russian business and the Russian Winter Festival.
Commercial Boatyard Facilities on the Tidal Thames
Question No: 241 / 2006
Bob Neill
Have the Mayor and/or the LDA responded to the report on Commercial Boatyard
Facilities on the tidal Thames by City Cruises plc, published in May 2005? Does the Mayor
agree with the report’s conclusion that there is a serious lack of such facilities? What steps
will he take to address this situation?

I have not sent a formal response to this report although it was brought to my attention last year
by John Biggs AM. It raises an important set of issues and I have asked my officers to investigate
further. I expect the new London Waterways Commission will also want to explore the provision
of boatyard facilities in London and the opportunities they could offer for local skilled

The London Plan has a specific policy (4C.18) which protects and encourages such facilities.
Indeed a new boatyard facility is being proposed in connection with a mixed use riverside
development in Greenwich, albeit with some detailed matters to be resolved.
Development of Cruise Liner Terminal in London
Question No: 242 / 2006
Bob Neill
What are the current proposals for the development of a cruise liner terminal on the
Thames within Greater London? What is the Mayor doing to pursue this issue?
At present I am not aware of any current proposals for a Cruise Liner terminal in London. There
have been proposals in the Greenwich area and there is demand for visiting ships to approach and
pass through Tower Bridge. However, the size of many cruise ships prevents this due to the
length and beam of vessels and the height restriction through Tower Bridge.

This is the sort of area where joint working between my officers, the Port of London Authority
and Visit Londonis useful. It could also be subject for investigation by the London Waterways
Commission. The case for a Cruise Liner Terminal was examined in relation to development at
Convoys Wharf but in the end it did not form part of the final development scheme.
Marine Engineering on the Tidal Thames
Question No: 243 / 2006
Bob Neill
Does the Mayor support the establishment of a cluster of marine engineering/centre for
marine excellence on the tidal Thames, as advocated by the City Cruises plc report on
boatyard facilities? What steps has he taken, or does he prepare to take to support the
creation of such a facility?

The concept of a marine centre of excellence is an interesting one that warrants further
investigation. The advice from City Cruises is that such a centre would be beneficial. I have
asked my officers in the LDA, TfL and GLA to explore this proposal over the course of the next
This would be a useful area for the London Waterways Commission to investigate.
Boat Servicing Centre, Canary Wharf
Question No: 244 / 2006
Bob Neill
Is the Mayor aware that the “boat servicing centre” proposed as part of the Canary Wharf
redevelopment is in fact too small for 90% of commercial vessels operating on the
Thames? What steps will he take to rectify this?

I believe that you are referring to the facilities proposed at Convoys Wharf. If this is the case then
I am aware that this is the position reported in the City Cruises report.
I have seen the Convoys Wharf proposals and broadly endorsed them as being in line with my
London Plan policies at the time the planning application was submitted.

The detailed requirements of the boatyard are a matter for the local planning authority. I would
expect the developer to have researched the requirements of what they are building and built a
facility that will be economically viable. Policy 4C.18 of my London Plan seeks the retention of
waterway support facilities and encourages the provision of new facilities.
Jubilee Line Shutdown
Question No: 245 / 2006
Roger Evans
What is the Mayor’s assessment of the Jubilee Line shutdown at Christmas? Does he
congratulate Tublelines on their efficient work?

The extra carriage on every single Jubilee line train means that an extra 6,000 passengers can be
carried every morning and evening peak.

I would like to congratulate the entire project team, including Tube Lines, on working to deliver
the improvements successfully two days early.
New York City Transit Workers Strike
Question No: 246 / 2006
Roger Evans
What lessons has the Mayor learnt from the New York City transit workers strike?

I do not believe that the circumstances and legal frameworks in New York are sufficiently similar
to allow useful conclusions to be drawn.
New Year’s Eve Free Travel
Question No: 247 / 2006
Roger Evans
What was the nature of the National Westminster Bank sponsorship deal for free travel on
New Years Eve? Was the original agreement affected by the strike? Can the Mayor
provide the financial figures for the deal?

The sponsorship package with NatWest for New Years Eve (NYE) involved an amount of
commercial and London Underground poster space (specifying free travel times) along with a
leaflet promoting NYE services. The agreement was not affected by the strike action on NYE. LU
is unable to provide financial information at the present time, as this may affect future
sponsorship activities.
Industrial Relations
Question No: 248 / 2006
Roger Evans
Will the Mayor comment on the current industrial relations climate?

Last year, London Underground (LU) agreed a two-year wage settlement with the trade unions.
That agreement produced a period of calm with regard to industrial action. This shows the value
of multi-year labour agreements, which we shall insist on, going forward. These agreements
require both management and labour to follow established machinery of negotiations and to live
up to the agreements that are reached. The fundamental point for me, is that any strike action,
prior to the exhaustion of the machinery of negotiations will never be rewarded.
Woolwich Crossrail Station
Question No: 249 / 2006
Roger Evans
What is the Mayor’s opinion on the campaign for a Crossrail station in Woolwich?

The Docklands Light Railway Woolwich extension and Greenwich Waterfront Transit will
bring early transport improvements to Woolwich. Clearly there would be real benefits from a
Crossrail station at Woolwich, but given the high additional costs the focus is on providing the
current, costed scheme. I have discussed this issue with the local Assembly Member, Len Duvall
and am aware of the strong campaign in Woolwich to support the case for a Crossrail station.

As you know, powers to construct a station at Woolwich are not being sought in the Bill
introduced into Parliament on 22 February 2005, although the alignment of the running tunnels
does not preclude a station at Woolwich being developed in the future.

The Crossrail team, at the request of the London Borough of Greenwich and other stakeholders,
have undertaken a more detailed study of the costs and benefits of a station at Woolwich, which
was published in December 2005. This study assessed the case for the station against the
Government's integrated transport criteria for new rail schemes and includes a cost benefit
analysis. Having considered the report, I am told that Ministers remain of the view that there is
not a strong enough case for building a station at Woolwich in view of the cost of doing so.

However, as mentioned below, the Crossrail Bill Select Committee sessions commenced on 17
January 2006, where petitions are being heard, including that from Greenwich Council and no
final decision has yet been made.
Question No: 250 / 2006
Roger Evans
Is Crossrail ever going to happen?

I am confident it will, and the significant Government funding to Crossrail for the Parliamentary
process and sponsorship of the Bill confirms their continuing support. The project is proceeding
as fast as the necessary procedures will allow.

The Crossrail Bill Select Committee sessions commenced on 17 January 2006, where petitions are
being heard. An Act of Parliament is required for the construction of any new railway line, and
construction cannot commence until the Bill is enacted.

A project of this scale requires detailed planning, and full inclusion and consultation with
stakeholders in both the public and private sectors. CLRL carried out extensive public and
stakeholder consultation prior to the submission of the Bill and will continue this throughout the
Parliamentary process, detailed design and construction phases.
North London Line
Question No: 251 / 2006
Roger Evans
Is the Mayor confident of taking control of the North London Line?
Yes. TfL are in the process of concluding negotiations with the DfT on the terms of responsibility
for the whole of the Silverlink Metro franchise, including the North London Line. There have
been detailed financial negotiations to ensure that the terms of transfer are in the interests of
London and will not represent an undue cost burden. I am confident that the transfer will be
concluded in the very near future.
Discounted Fares
Question No: 252 / 2006
Roger Evans
Are there lessons to be learnt from the discounted fares scheme being operated by Virgin
CrossCountry to benefit passengers on RMT strike days?

TfL is currently working with its private sector partner to make it easier to introduce special
Oyster fares when services are disrupted or in their aftermath.

It is expected that this capability will be introduced during the course of 2006.*
Northern Line
Question No: 253 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Can you please provide figures for excess journey time for the Northern Line, in
proportional percentage due to: A - Infraco action, B - London Underground action, and C
- other /passenger action, for the months of November and December 2005?

London Underground (LU) compiles its performance statistics on a 4-week period rather than
calendar months. The breakdown of excess journey time figures for the two most recent periods
(covering 13 November to 7 January) shows that the total excess journey time of 7 minutes on the
Northern line is made up of 2 minutes due to stations-related functions, for example interchange
and ticket purchase etc; and 5 minutes due to trains-related incidents.

The trains excess journey time is broken down as follows:

3.5 minutes Small incidents of less than 2 minutes duration each (eg fluctuations in demand,
variations in service regularity)
0.8 minutes Infrastructure (fleet, signals, track)
0.4 minutes LU-related (including staff absence, errors and industrial action)
0.3 minutes Customer related (eg security alerts or customer illness)

Signal Failure Northern Line
Question No: 254 / 2006
Brian Coleman
How many signal failures and multiple signal failures there have been on the Northern
Line during the months of November and December 2005?

LU compiles its performance statistics on a 4-week period rather than calendar months. The
figures for the two most recent periods are:

           Period                  Dates                      Number of Failures
             8            16 October – 12 November                  28
             9           13 November – 10 December                  50

The figures indicate the number of signal failures that were attributable to Infracos and that
resulted in service disruptions of 2 minutes or more. A single incident that causes more than one
signal to fail is counted as 1 in the table.
Tube Driver Establishment
Question No: 255 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Can you please provide figures for the budgeted tube driver establishment, and figures for
the in-post number of drivers on the Northern Line, as of 31st December 2005?

The budget was 540, against which the in-post number was 535.
Archway Station
Question No: 256 / 2006
Brian Coleman
How many of the 252 trains that prematurely terminated at Archway were due to Infraco
action, how many were due to London Underground action and how many were due to
other factors?

Over 300 trains are scheduled through Archway each weekday – this number of reversals
represents approximately 3% of trains over a month.

The Northern line’s geography means that recovery of schedule occurs more often at the north
ends of the line. It is not feasible to establish the reasons for reversing individual trains and
whether they were due to infraco action or LU action..

However, the month in question (October 2005) was a time of extensive disruption due to
infrastructure problems – particularly related to a series of secondary braking system (tripcock)
Croydon Police Station
Question No: 257 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
My GLA constituent has found it necessary to complain on a number of occasions about
the continuing delay in sorting out the access of Police vehicles to Croydon Police Station.
The normal access on Beech House Road is out of action. Instead cars now use the fire exit
in Friends Road. Is there insufficient money to repair the gate on Beech House Road?
When will Beech House Road become the main entrance for vehicles once more?

I have been informed that the MPS’ Property Services have raised the money for a replacement
gate. The preparatory work commenced just before Christmas and the gates, being manufactured
in Germany, will be delivered at the beginning of February. The programmed works are due to be
completed on 10th February 2006.
Bus Capacity
Question No: 258 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Transport for London and Croydon LEA give the appearance to my constituents to be
passing the buck between each other on providing sufficient bus capacity to serve both
commuters from the densely populated Davidson Road area and pupils travelling to the
temporary site of the Stanley Tech High School. Please could I ask you to intervene
urgently to provide extra capacity on the route between Norwood Junction and East
Croydon between 7.45 and 8.30am weekdays.

In response to the relocation of this school, TfL has introduced a new school day only service
(route 604). This service was revised, in consultation with the school, following initial experience
of usage.

Subsequent to this, surveys were organised to assess whether capacity on local route 410 was
adequate for the demand. TfL found that this was the case. The surveys showed that there was
adequate capacity at Tennison Road towards Croydon in the morning peak hour, although 1 bus
out of the 6 was full. TfL will continue to monitor the situation.
463 Bus Route
Question No: 259 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
You will be aware of the protests that took place about crowding on the 463 bus route in
the morning. What can be done to improve the peak capacity of this service.

Once TfL was aware of this problem they quickly examined ways of providing extra capacity to
meet the increased demand. On 9 January 2006, an extra bus northbound in the morning and
southbound in the afternoon, timed to meet the peak school demand, was introduced.
Question No: 260 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Since the inception of PCSOs how many individuals have been employed as PCSOs by the
MPS? How many of these individuals have become Police Officers?

Police Community Support Officers were introduced to London on 11th September 2002. Since
then 2,819 have been recruited, of whom 280 have subsequently become police officers.
Pension Scheme
Question No: 261 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
What action can you take as Mayor to ask the MPA to put pressure on the Government
Actuary’s Department to certify the pension scheme of TUPE transferred employees
under notice of redundancy at Scott Wilson who previously were members of the Principal
Civil Service Pension Service Scheme as employees of the MPS?
I have been informed that the MPA's understanding is that the Government Actuary's
Department (GAD) is unable to issue a Certificate if they have not been provided with
documentation to show that the proposed benefit structure passes the Broad Comparability
Assessment. The GAD has been in correspondence with Scott Wilson's current pension advisers
to seek the outstanding documentation.
Coulsdon By-pass
Question No: 262 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Is there an over run in the completion date of the Coulsdon by-pass? Are there any cost
over runs for the public purse?

The original completion date for the Coulsdon Relief Road was 26 January 2006. A combination
of unforeseen ground conditions at Smitham Station and additional diversion work has resulted in
delays to key elements of the project.
TfL’s contract makes provision for the review and assessment of delays, and the contractor being
awarded an extension of time. The scheme is now scheduled to complete in autumn 2006.

Allowance was made for risks to the project and provisions made. However, the delays
encountered are likely to result in overall project costs in excess of the previous provisions. TfL’s
project team is reviewing the extent of residual risk with the designer and contractor, and risk
provisions will be updated once this work is complete.
London Underground PPP
Question No: 263 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Would you be willing to see the taxpayer pay anything for changing the LU PPP contracts
from output based to input based contracts?

My position has already been well documented that the PPP was an expensive and inefficient
method of securing the necessary investment for the London Underground. The contracts
however are now in place and LU is working hard to maximise the outputs from the Infracos to
achieve the improved performance of the Underground. Although the Periodic Review in 2010
might allow us to amend some of the contract terms, there would be risks and costs attached to
this. My and LU’s primary objective for the Review will be to hold the Infracos to their
commitments, and extract maximum value from the contracts for its customers and the taxpayer.
Drug Abuse
Question No: 264 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
What can be done to tackle drug dealing near and around tram stops in South Norwood
and Woodside?

The British Transport Police (BTP) have confirmed that since two minor drug related incidents
at the Arena tram stop in Croydon in early 2005, they are not aware of any further problems of
this nature.

I am continuing to work with the BTP and MPS to make train stations and tram stops in London
safer. The BTP and local Safer Neighbourhood teams regularly patrol transport interchanges in
the Croydon area and are making a real difference to crime and the fear of crime.

Additionally, any information from the public to assist police to combat drug dealing is vital. By
working together, drug dealing in Croydon can be greatly reduced.
Community Support Officers
Question No: 265 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Will Community Support Officers be permitted to police streets in ways that do not
require them to police specifically in groups?

Decisions on solo or double patrolling are a matter for Borough Operational Command Units
(BOCU's) in light of local risk assessments.

In most boroughs, experienced PCSOs do patrol on their own.
Battle of Britain Heritage
Question No: 266 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
What consideration can be given to “Battle of Britain” heritage issues if a planning
application should come forward at the former officers’ mess site at Kenley aerodrome?

Planning Policy Guidance 15: ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’, provides a full statement
of Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation
areas, and other elements of the historic environment. It explains the role played by the planning
system in their protection.

Whilst the majority of the airfield is within the London Borough of Croydon, the former officers’
mess is outside of the borough boundary, and hence outside of Greater London. I would
therefore have no role in any planning applications submitted for the former officers’ mess.
Oystercard and Pre-pay Facilities
Question No: 267 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
What is the average sum of unspent money held by TfL on Oyster and other pre-pay

As of Tuesday, 17 January, 2006, there was £12,572,049 unspent on 1,723,645 Oyster cards.
This represents an average card balance of £7.29 per card.
Question No: 268 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Would you support darts being an Olympic in 2012?

The decision on which sports are included in the Olympic Games is one solely for the IOC.
Anti-Terrorism Funding
Question No: 269 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Could you outline the conversations that have taken place with HM Treasury regarding
the appropriate funding for anti-terrorism work by the MPS?

The MPS and MPA have not held conversations with HM Treasury, although they have held
detailed negotiations with the Home Office and a full business case has been submitted.

Although some final detail is still awaited, the headline allocations indicate that this should be a
good settlement for counter terrorism funding. The Home Office has confirmed counter
terrorism grants covering existing activity of some £177m and that a further £50m will also be
incorporated. There is also a new grant of £30m in 2006-07 rising to £45m in 2007-08 in
relation to the bid for extra resources. This will give a total allocation of some £257m in 2006-07
compared to the £228m that has been budgeted for so far. In addition the MPS will expect an
allocation from new capital grant funding of £30m nationally, although allocations have yet to be
Question No: 270 / 2006
Andrew Pelling
Since TfL’s creation how many buses have been found to be in contravention of yellow
boxes in London and what has been the amount of fines received?

Camera enforcement of yellow-box junctions commenced in July 2004. The total number of
buses contravening yellow boxes on the Transport for London Road Network and issued with
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) since then is 433, out of a total of 70,000 issued to all vehicles
over the same period. Based on the value recovered per PCN, some £26,290 has been received for
bus contraventions. Such PCNs are paid for by the operator concerned as the owner is liable for
H Forman and Son
Question No: 271 / 2006
Angie Bray
The smoked salmon company H Forman & Son has identified a piece of vacant land in LB
Tower Hamlets, which is approximately 1 mile from its existing premises. The land has sat
derelict for 7 years and is owned by the Borough. Mr Forman has asked the Borough
whether it will sell him part or all of the site so that he can relocate his business. He is
advised that his plan would not contravene the Borough’s Area Action Plan for the site.
However, the Cabinet have decided that rather than help him to relocate by selling part or
all of this site at market value, they are not prepared to consider selling it until further
master planning is undertaken, which would be too late for Forman’s. The site previously
had planning permission for a mixed use scheme with Mayoral approval. Locating
Forman’s to this site would solve their Olympic difficulties, create local employment in
one of the worst areas in the country, meet the objectives of the Mayor’s Food Strategy for
London especially in encouraging food tourism and reducing food miles. Forman’s
proposed relocation to this site is fully supported by London Thames Gateway
Development Corporation. Does the Mayor consider that LBTH’s refusal to make this site
available to Forman’s business is unreasonable and will he press LBTH to make the site
available to Forman’s?

I understand that H Forman have had discussions with LB Tower Hamlets which have made
clear their planning reasons for not making the site available. The London Development Agency
continues to be in close negotiations with Mr Forman and his advisors in order to find an
alternative relocation site and I hope these will lead to a successful outcome.
Olympic Land Purchase
Question No: 272 / 2006
Angie Bray
In the past Mary Reilly has been quoted as saying costs for buying and preparing the site
for the Olympics could “in a worse case scenario” top £1billion pounds. In your “Draft
capital spending plan for 2006-7” - p7 - it shows that the LDA intends to spend £245m in
06/07, £439m in 07/08 and 75m in 08/09 on “Olympic Land and Legacy”. This totals
£768m. Given that the initial estimates for these costs was below half a billion, is this new
figure robust? Are you alarmed by the speed with which these costs are moving towards
the “worst case scenario” figure?

The capital spending plan figures are completely in line with the London Development Agency’s
projections and the financial strategy was approved by the LDA board last year.
Olympics - LDA
Question No: 273 / 2006
Angie Bray
In your “Draft capital spending plan for 2006-7” - p1 talks about the LDA’s role in
purchasing land for the Olympic site and states: “This land acquisition programme needs
Government approval and it is not known when this will be secured, or whether it would
have any implications for borrowing limits across the GLA Group.” Are you not concerned
that we do not know when government approval will be forthcoming? Could it delay things
further? You may not know the exact implications on borrowing limits across the GLA
Group but what are the potential implications? Could this impact TfL’s ability to borrow
for major transport projects for example?

More than 80% of the land required to deliver the Olympic Park is already under pubic control. I
am therefore confident that the remaining land can be acquired either through private negotiation
with land owners or through compulsory purchase order. As with any CPO, the final decision
rests with Government and in this case with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This
will follow a public inquiry scheduled for May 2006. I am confident that the timetable allows
sufficient time for delivery of the CPO and the relocation of businesses by summer 2007.

Question No: 274 / 2006
Angie Bray
Were any GLA resources used to fund the Kulture2Couture event on 26th and 27th
November 2005? If so, how much and from which budget did the funding come from?

Kulture2Couture was established and organised as part of my Black History Season programme
and is therefore met out of the annual Black History Month budget, which met the core costs of
marketing and promotion across all the events. Additionally, sponsorship (cash and in-kind) was
raised totalling £65k. Kulture2Couture took place over 4 days: Thursday 24 – Sunday 27
November 2005.
Question No: 275 / 2006
Angie Bray
Was sponsorship for the Kulture2Couture event on 26th and 27th November 2005 sought
and if so, how much was forthcoming?

Kulture2Couture took place over 4 days: Thursday 24 – Sunday 27 November 2005. Sponsorship
(cash and in-kind) was raised totalling £65k.
Question No: 276 / 2006
Angie Bray
How many exhibitors took part in the Kulture2Couture event on 26th and 27th November
2005? Can you provide a list of the exhibitors?

In total, 46 companies exhibited at Kulture2Couture event, which took place on 24-27 November
2005 (launch event on Thursday 24 November, manufacturers’ workshop on Friday 25 November
2005 and public open days on Saturday 26 and Sunday 27 November 2005). A list of exhibitors is
attached as Appendix E. Over 3,000 people attended the event and 350 people attended the
industry workshops.
EU Resale Right Directive
Question No: 277 / 2006
Angie Bray
Would the Mayor agree to support the Assembly’s Economic Development, Culture Sport
and Tourism Committee Report, which I led, that called for the governmnent to reverse
it’s decision to the lower the threshold on which the Droit de Suite can be levied, from
3,000 euros to 1,000 euros, in an effort to protect business and artist alike from the
possible negative impact of the New Droit de Suite Directive?

Following extensive consultation on the implementation of the Artists’ Resale Right Directive in
the UK, the Government concluded that if the threshold were lowered to €1,000, there would be
considerable benefit to artists on low incomes, while the cost to business related to processing
royalties would be minimal and there would be no risk of diverting business away from London.
This conclusion seems reasonable. However, as the Directive will be reviewed in 2009, there will
be an opportunity to assess the impact of the level of the threshold on artists and the art market
and if necessary to propose changes.
Droit de Suite
Question No: 278 / 2006
Angie Bray
Does the Mayor support the recommendation of the Assembly’s EDCST committee that
the UK should seek to keep it derogation on the Droit de Suite applying to dead artists
after the set period of 2012?

As I suggested in my answer to Question 2447/2005, the Artists’ Resale Right Directive is only
just about to enter into force, so its impact is not yet known. When the Directive is reviewed in
2009, it will be important that the impact on artists and on the art market is examined carefully.
Whether the provisions of the Directive, including the derogation relating to the work of
deceased artists, need to be maintained or changed will depend on the outcome of that review.
London Art Market
Question No: 279 / 2006
Angie Bray
Would the Mayor agree to facilitate the setting up of a London wide celebration of
London’s Art market and artists to promote this aspect of our city commerce and culture,
which we particularly excel at?

A large number of festivals and events already exist in the capital to celebrate and promote the
arts sector. Most notably the Frieze Art Fare, which in the few years since its inception has
established a global reputation (last year 47,000 people attended). I support the Frieze Art Fare
through the LDA Creative London department and through the Culture department at the GLA.
I do not see the need to set up a new art and art market festival.
Metropolitan Police
Question No: 280 / 2006
Brian Coleman
What is the estimated cost to the Metropolitan Police of the investigation of the
complaint following Sir Iqbal Sacranie’s interview on Radio 4? Does the Mayor think this
investigation is a proper use of London’s Police resources?

The Metropolitan Police received a report of comments made by Sir Iqbal Sacranie during a radio
interview which were investigated to ascertain if any offences were committed. I have been
informed that three hours of a sergeant’s time was used, equating to roughly £21 an hour,
making a cost of £63.
Cycle Lanes
Question No: 281 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Can you confirm that Barnet Council’s response to TfL’s formal objection, referred to in
your answer to question 2391/2005 (Removal of cycle lanes in Barnet), explained that a
key reason for removing the cycle lanes was that they did not comply with TfL’s London
Cycle Design Standards, and safe and adequate facilities could not be re-provided in this

In the Council’s response to TfL’s formal objection, Barnet gave a number of reasons, including
non-compliance in their view, with London Cycling Design Standards. It is a matter of
professional judgment, based on experience and research, whether a facility makes cycling safer
and more convenient. In this case, the opinion of TfL officers differs from that of Barnet officers.
Whilst the existing facilities did not meet the guideline minimum widths for new cycle lanes
detailed in the London Cycle Design Standards, they were considered, by officers in TfL’s Cycling
Centre of Excellence, to be preferable to no facilities at all. An independent study by TRL in
2005, for TfL, into the development and delivery of measures designed to improve safety and
convenience for cyclists found that “cycle lanes generally have the effect of decreasing the number
of casualty collisions involving cyclists, despite not meeting the minimum or recommended
guidance for cycle lane width”.
Resurfacing Work on the A1000 and A1003
Question No: 282 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Are you happy that vital resurfacing work on the A1000 and A1003, and improvements to
reduce congestion, have been delayed by TfL’s refusal to fund schemes unless sub-standard
cycle facilities are retained?

It is a misrepresentation to say that TfL has delayed resurfacing work. TfL has put forward a
course of action that would enable resurfacing works on A1000 / 1003 to continue.

In respect of the A1000, TfL requested LB Barnet to initiate a ‘CRISP’ (Cycle Route
Implementation Stakeholder Plan) study for this section of the LCN+ network to inform how
best to provide for cyclists, whilst accommodating the needs of other road users. Barnet has yet
to agree to this request.

In respect of the A1003, TfL has requested plans of the proposed re-design of the road layout to
determine the potential impacts of the scheme on the safety and convenience of cyclists and other
road users. TfL is awaiting these plans.
Question No: 283 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Are you aware that during a site visit to the A1003, TfL witnessed a cyclist going the
wrong way round a busy roundabout (marked with potentially confusing cycle lanes in
green coloured surfacing) but still consider the facility should remain as existing?

Cyclists sometimes undertake illegal maneuvers, particularly using footways and short cuts.
However, they do not have a monopoly on such antisocial and potentially unsafe practices.

Officers from TfL’s Cycling Centre of Excellence (CCE) have undertaken a site visit and remain
of the opinion that it is safer to retain the present cycle facilities than for them to be removed.
Their removal and other changes to the roundabout proposed by Barnet would, in the opinion of
CCE, significantly worsen conditions for cyclists. There are undoubtedly improvements that
could be made and CCE has offered to review plans for a revised layout and otherwise assist in
developing a more satisfactory design that achieved an appropriate balance of provision for all
modes, and to trial and monitor an agreed interim proposal.
Question No: 284 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Do TfL’s representations           regarding    the    A1003     roundabout      contradict    the
recommendation in paragraph 5.4.14 of the London Cycle Design Standards?

No. The caveat on cycle lanes on roundabouts appearing in section 5.4.14 of the London Cycle
Design Standards relates specifically to ‘Continental’ type roundabouts. These are measurably
safer than standard UK design roundabouts, in that they reduce traffic speed to that of cyclists by
narrowing the entry and exit points. They are uncommon in this country.

Sections 5.4.4 and 5.4.9 set out the type of measures that can reduce the risks to cyclists at UK
roundabouts. The key issue is to reduce the speed of traffic on entry, circulation and exit to a level
consistent with use by cyclists. The A1003 roundabout orbital cycle lanes also lessen traffic
speeds. Each location has its own risks and characteristics that need to be properly considered
when developing designs.
Question No: 285 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Are you concerned that the cycle lanes on the A1000, which TfL officers would like
retained, are as little as 1.0m wide, and can you confirm what the minimum width of cycle
lane, as specified by the LCDS, should be for this situation?

As mentioned in my response to question 283, TfL believe that the cycle lanes should be retained
because their removal would significantly worsen conditions for cyclists.

An independent study by TRL in 2005 into the development and delivery of measures to improve
safety and convenience found that “cycle lanes generally have the effect of decreasing the number
of casualty collisions involving cyclists, despite not meeting the minimum or recommended
guidance for cycle lane width.” Of course, there would be additional benefits, where cycle lanes
are of the recommended width i.e. 1.5-2.0m.
London Cycle Design Standards
Question No: 286 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Will you instruct TfL to support the removal of substandard and/or illegal cycle measures
where they are unsafe or cannot be amended to comply with legislation and the London
Cycle Design Standards?

I encourage boroughs to make London’s streets safer for everyone, and to work with TfL and
neighbouring boroughs to provide improved conditions for cyclists, particularly on strategic
routes. My priority is those cycle routes which together form the LCN+ and I have asked TfL to
involve every London borough, agree common standards and procedures and co-ordinate
delivery of this flagship programme. These requirements are set out in the London Cycling
Design Standards. The first step is a feasibility study, the CRISP (Cycle Route Implementation
Stakeholder Plan) where site problems are identified, and priorities and mitigating treatments are
agreed for each route.

If existing facilities do not meet the qualitive minimum widths for new cycle lanes TfL consider
them to be preferable to no facilities at all. An independent study by TRL in 2005, for TfL, into
the development and delivery of measures designed to improve safety and convenience for cyclists
found that “cycle lanes generally have the effect of decreasing the number of casualty collisions
involving cyclists, despite not meeting the minimum or recommended guidance for cycle lane

Where a measure is determined not to be legal, I would of course fully support TfL and a borough
working together to resolve such a situation in a manner that did not prejudice my objectives for
cycling in the capital.
Cycle Facilities
Question No: 287 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Do the Mayor and TfL consider the retention of substandard cycle facilities to be more
important than the safety of cyclists?

In the case of Barnet’s works on the A1000 and A1003, TfL believes that it would be safer for
cyclists if the cycle lanes to be retained than for Barnet to remove them.
Henly’s Corner
Question No: 288 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Can you provide current details of work planned for Henly’s Corner?

Henly’s Corner comprises three inter-connected junctions where the A1 joins and leaves the
A406, with the A598 Regent’s Park Road crossing between. Studies were undertaken to seek to
provide pedestrian crossing improvements at the A598 junction but these were found to be
impractical without unduly affecting traffic operations at this important junction complex.

TfL is now developing a scheme to seek to provide some improvements in pedestrian facilities
within the junction complex as a whole. It is not proposed to carry out any road widening to
achieve this. Detailed analysis of signalling options is in progress to seek to also improve traffic
operations. Once complete, and with the support of local representatives, TfL would introduce
the improvements in 2006/7, in conjunction with works to address the deteriorating surface of
the carriageway.

TfL is embarking on a strategic review of the A406 in Barnet to understand better the pressures
and constraints, with a view to establishing a balanced longer-term plan that does not simply
move and exacerbate the problem down the road.
Waste Authority Levy
Question No: 289 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Are aware of DEFRA’s apparent reluctance to introduce the agreed tonnage based levy for
waste authorities? Will you support such a levy?

The Government have recently published a draft Statutory Instrument on the DEFRA website
and it is intended that this is laid before Parliament imminently. Therefore contrary to your
question DEFRA are not reluctant to introduce the tonnage based levy.

As was stated by my officers in a response to the consultation :

‘It is considered that the current financial arrangements …are not fair, as they do not encourage
waste collection authorities to reduce or recycle its household waste. Ideally a system whereby a
waste collection authority pays for the amount of household waste that it delivers to the JWDA
for disposal would be preferred. Where this is not possible it is considered that a levy based on
tonnage delivered to a JWDA is the next best thing.’

I therefore support such a levy.
Metropolitan Police Investigations
Question No: 290 / 2006
Brian Coleman
Can you confirm what resources, in terms of numbers of Officers and staff, the
Metropolitan Police have dedicated to the investigation of possible Nazi war criminals
still residing in the UK?

I have been informed that a team has been deployed to investigate suspected Nazi war criminals
residing in the UK and consists of a Senior Investigating Officer, an Investigating Officer, two
Detective Sergeants (one Home Office Large Major Inquiry System - HOLMES), two Detective
Constables (one HOLMES), one Police Analyst and one HOLMES Indexer. The team is
dedicated to, but not exclusive to, this Operation.
Royal Free Hospital
Question No: 291 / 2006
Brian Coleman
How many crimes have been committed within the grounds of the Royal Free Hospital in
the London Borough of Camden in 2005? Can you break this down month and categorise it
by offence?

There were 270 offences recorded on the grounds of the Royal Free Hospital during 2005. The
table below details a breakdown by month and by the type of offence.

Affordable Housing
Question No: 292 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Do you have any concerns regarding the affordable housing in Fulham, which is priced at

If sold at this figure, it would be far beyond the affordable housing guidelines in my London Plan.
My recent Supplementary Planning Guidance set the target range of income levels for which
‘intermediate housing’ should be affordable as being between £16,400 and £49,000 gross annual
household income. My aim is to provide a range of housing options affordable to people across
that income band.

Under the SPG definition, to be affordable, the cost to buy must not exceed three and a half times
the upper income limit. If renting, the total of all housing costs must not exceed 40 per cent of net
household income. The maximum weekly cost, based on the £49,000 top of the income range,
would therefore be £171,500 to buy or £285 per week to rent or part rent/part buy. Anything
beyond this I would normally consider ordinary market housing.

The fact that some boroughs are categorising such housing as affordable illustrates why the
GLA’s strategic planning powers should be strengthened.

Thames Gateway
Question No: 293 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Will you be making any response to the IPPR report on the Thames Gateway?

Please refer to the answer to 120/2006*
Thames Gateway
Question No: 294 / 2006
Tony Arbour
Do you share any of the concerns raised from the Institute for Public Policy Research on
the Thames Gateway?

Please refer to the answer 120/2006
Family Travelcards
Question No: 295 / 2006
Roger Evans
Why did you withdraw the Family Travelcard?

I have launched many initiatives to benefit children and families over the last five years: the
extension of free travel on bus to all under 16s; the free school party travel scheme; half price
Travelcard seasons for 16/17s; and free bus travel for most 16/17s later this year.

These initiatives are resulting in significant savings every day for large numbers of less well-off
families across London. An adult and two children can now take an outing together for as little as
£1.60 (2 80p Oyster fares). Last year the cost would have been twice this.
The Family Travelcard provided discounted travel for both adults and children in a party. Two
adults and 2 children could actually pay £4.00 less than two adults travelling alone. This meant
that adults travelling alone could potentially make significant savings by claiming to have a
non-existent child.

TfL has now adopted a more consistent and transparent approach:

      adults simply buy standard off-peak Travelcards;

      any child accompanying an adult Travelcard holder (including the 1 million or so season
       ticket holders) can buy a 6 zone off-peak travel on the Tube and Trains for £1.00.

This structure is simpler and more logical, but has led to a one-off increase in the cost of family
leisure outings: a party of adults and children on the tube now pay £1.00p more per child than the
same number of adults travelling alone.
Family Travelcards
Question No: 296 / 2006
Roger Evans
What impact do you think scrapping these has had on London’s economy? Isn’t it
counter-intuitive to scrap these cards at a time when visitor numbers to London have been
falling? Doesn’t it also act as an incentive for families to drive in to London rather than
take public transport?

The package of changes introduced this January will make use of the Tube and bus more
convenient for the majority of users. I do not consider that the withdrawal of the family
Travelcard will have a negative effect on the London economy.

Visitor numbers to London were increasing in the first half of 2005, blipped down in the
July-September quarter, but are now recovering well.

As far as traffic congestion in the off-peak and at weekends is concerned, the main issue is the
growing level of car use in the suburbs and outer London.

Free bus travel for children and the 80p adult Oyster fare provide families travelling in these
areas with a new cost-effective alternative to the car.

Two adults and two children can now travel by bus for as little as £1.60 (2 adult Oyster fares at
80p, children are free). A year ago, the cost would have been 50% more.
Family Travelcards
Question No: 297 / 2006
Roger Evans
How many Family Travelcards were sold in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005? How much
fare revenue was obtained from family Travelcards in each of these years? What
percentage of total fare revenue did family Travelcards make up in each of these years?
What projections do TfL have for the impact this change will have on passenger behavior -
do they expect families simply to pay the difference, or to swap to cars, or not to visit
London at all? Please provide all figures or studies TfL have carried out on this issue.

The table below sets out the statistics requested.

                  London          TfL from                 Percentage
                   Family     revenue                         of TfL
                Travelcard                                   revenue
                issues of                                      from
                individual                                 Family
                tickets                                    Travelcards
 Calendar       m          London      All tickets
 year                      Family
                           TCs         £m
 2001                9.5       12         1,815                    0.7
 2002               10.6       14         1,855                    0.8
 2003               10.4       14         1,872                    0.7
 2004               12.5       16         2,093                    0.8
 2004               12.0       16         2,200                    0.7

TfL expects sales of One Day tickets to the Family Travelcard market to fall substantially.
However, this loss of sales is expected to be more than offset by additional off-peak and weekend
travel by families built around the new Oyster fare offers and the child Oyster card.

These offers include:

       Child off-peak Oyster fares capped at £1;

       Low adult Oyster fares at weekends: the £2 maximum fare on the Tube in London has
        been frozen and the £2 fare from Zone 2 to Zone 1 reduced to £1.50;

       Oyster One Day caps set at 50p below the relevant off-peak Travelcard price;

       Half price pay as you go fares for 16/17s.

       Free travel for under 16’s on buses and trams.
In addition, as mentioned under 0296/2006, two adults and two children can now make a trip
together by bus for as little as £1.60 (2 adult Oyster fares at 80p, children travel free). A year
ago, the cost would have been 50% more.
Marshgate Lane
Question No: 298 / 2006
Angie Bray
In reference to the progress of negotiations with the businesses of Marshgate Lane, please
could you clearly define what is meant by number of businesses engaged in dialogue with
the LDA?

Businesses categorised as being “engaged in dialogue with the LDA” have received an initial
relocation proposal; a fee undertaking to meet the reasonable costs of legal advisors and surveyors
of the businesses’ choice; and an initial indication of the market value of the property.

These businesses have responded to the London Development Agency indicating their view of
the relocation proposal and they have also either confirmed to the LDA that it holds accurate
information about the business or provided relevant further information in order to inform the
relocation and business support process.
Violent Crime in Kensal Green
Question No: 299 / 2006
Bob Blackman
Do you think it is acceptable that violent crime in Kensal Green, the area where City
lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce was brutally murdered, rose by 37% last year?

The rise in violent crime is not acceptable and my condolences go to the family and friends of
Thomas ap Rhys Pryce.

I congratulate the MPS on their swift arrest of the suspects.

I am committed to increasing police numbers and the growth of safer neighbourhood teams.
Officers in Kensal Green will be concentrating activity in the local area to provide reassurance to
the local community following this incident.

With the full support of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Government Office for London
(GOL), Youth Justice Board (YJB), London Probation and many other crime reduction and
prevention agencies I am committed to tackling violent crime in London.
As a partnership we have established a Strategic Violent Crime Reduction Board to look at gun
and knife-enabled crime. The focus of the board will be to establish a sound intelligence base of
gangs, gun and knife use, develop and coordinate prevention best practice and to develop a
pan-London approach to the prevention and reduction of knife enabled crime.

Operation Blunt (MPS knife crime prevention and reduction programme) targets knife enabled
crime in London. Some of the initiatives Officers are involved in include knife amnesties,
multi-media education campaigns and community initiatives.
I have worked with the From Boyhood to Manhood Foundation to develop a multi-media
education resource to engage young people in discussion and learning about violence and
anti-social behaviour. This resource is being delivered in schools across London.
Kensal Green Murder
Question No: 300 / 2006
Bob Blackman
Is the death of Tom ap Rhys Pryce and the fact that last year there where more than 1200
crimes involving knives an argument for expanding stop and search.

Knife enabled crime statistics provided by the MPA show that 12,173 offences were recorded
during 2004/05. This is a -13% reduction on the 14,029 offences recorded during 2003/04.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) continually monitors the effectiveness of Stop and Search
and continues to explore ways to make stop and search more effective, by utilising more accurate
descriptions of those who have committed crime, by targeting known prolific and other priority
offenders and by giving officers better guidance on what amounts to reasonable suspicion. The
MPS will continue to use this valuable policing tool. During 2005 the MPS conducted nearly
250,000 stop and searches using the range of powers available.
Stop and Search
Question No: 301 / 2006
Bob Blackman
What proportion of arrests for, “going equipped” and carrying offensive weapons resulted
from stop and search in each of the last four years?

The MPS record arrest data on a custody database. The terms "Going Equipped" and "Carrying
Offensive Weapons" are not arrest categories. The MPS are therefore unable to provided arrest
statistics on these terms.
Stop and Search
Question No: 302 / 2006
Bob Blackman
How many stop and searches have been conducted in each of the last four years?

The figures below provide the total number of stop and searches by the MPS for the last four
financial years and to November 2005:

2001/02 = 195,457 (of which 101,270 were white and 94,187 BME)

2002/03 = 258,347 (of which 130,945 were white and 127,402 BME)

2003/04 = 233,870 (of which 115,919 were white and 117,951 BME)

2004/05 = 228,344 (of which 112,022 were white and 116,322 BME)
2005/06 (to November 2005) = 171,948 (of which 82,291 were white and 89,657 BME)
Learning and Skills Council powers
Question No: 303 / 2006
Elizabeth Howlett
If Learning and Skills Council powers are devolved to you, what would the benefits of the
change be to learners and/or employers?

I believe it is essential for both learners and business in London that the powers and the
responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council transfer to the GLA as part of the current
Government consultation.

 I will ensure that in future the work and targets of the London Learning and Skills councils are
closely aligned with the needs of the London economy and London businesses. Both individual
learners and business will see improved access to the services they require.

There will be benefits from the creation of a single entry-point for Londoners and for employers,
along with a reduction in bureaucracy and the full integration all economic development
investment with skills planning and funding.

It is my vision that we will have a sustained focus on developing the skills of all of the
communities which make up London and finally start to address educational underachievement,
low employment levels and inequalities in the London labour market.
Transport Links to Queen Mary’s Hospital
Question No: 304 / 2006
Elizabeth Howlett
Queen Mary’s Hospital Roehampton, SW15, will be reopening very shortly. As transport
links are very poor there is an urgent need for extra bus routes serving the hospital. Please
would you see that TfL addresses this?

Queen Mary’s Hospital is served by 3 bus services:

   Route 72 runs every 7.5 minutes during the day (30 minutes during the night). It links
    Roehampton, Barnes Station, Barnes itself, Hammersmith, Shepherd’s Bush and East Acton.
   Route 265 runs every 12 minutes during the day, giving links to Tolworth, Kingston Vale,
    Barnes Station, Putney and Putney Bridge Station.
   Route 493 runs every 15 minutes during the day. It links Richmond, Sheen, Wimbledon and

TfL is not aware of any capacity issues in the vicinity of the Hospital. If there are specific links
that you believe are required, TfL will be happy to examine whether these can be provided.
Transport Links Springfield Hospital
Question No: 305 / 2006
Elizabeth Howlett
Springfield Hospital, Wandsworth is currently only accessed by the G1 bus. Please would
you ensure TfL explores the possibility of other bus routes to the hospital as Springfield
Hospital serves a wide catchment area?

The G1 provides access to Springfield Hospital, including important links from Streatham,
Tooting and Clapham Junction where interchange to other bus and rail services is available.

TfL has examined the possibility of extra services to this site. However the benefits do not justify
the costs, as current bus usage to Springfield Hospital is relatively small. If there are any further
specific links that you believe are required, TfL will be happy to examine whether these can be
Government Gold-plating of Droit de Suite Art Levy
Question No: 306 / 2006
Peter Hulme Cross
Does the Mayor support the government’s goldplating of the new droit de suite rules
which imposes a minimum level of 1000 euros instead of the 3000 euros stipulated by the
EU directive?

Following extensive consultation on the implementation of the Artists’ Resale Right Directive in
the UK, the Government concluded that if the threshold were lowered to €1,000, there would be
considerable benefit to artists on low incomes, while the cost to business related to processing
royalties would be minimal and there would be no risk of diverting business away from London.
This conclusion seems reasonable. However, as the Directive will be reviewed in 2009, there will
be an opportunity to assess the impact of the level of the threshold on artists and the art market
and if necessary to propose changes.
Interference in Non-EU Art Markets
Question No: 307 / 2006
Peter Hulme Cross
Does the Mayor agree with One London that it would be a futile waste of taxpayers’ money
to lobby New York and Zurich to introduce droit de suite?

As I stated in answer to Question 2450/2005, I support the Government’s attempts to make
international application of artists’ resale right a priority for the EU in the context of negotiations
in the World Intellectual Property Organisation. This is more likely to ensure a level global
playing field for London’s Art Market than lobbying individual cities to introduce the right.*
Mayor’s Draft Older People’s Strategy
Question No: 308 / 2006
Peter Hulme Cross
Does the Mayor think it is sensible to devise an older people’s strategy without the input
of anyone over 50 in his office?

The Draft London Older People’s Strategy was drawn up with the active involvement of
representatives from a wide range of older people’s groups in London. I am over 50 myself, as are
several members of my Management Board, who made an input to the draft strategy. In all areas
of work, my aim is to have staff teams who are as representative of Londoners as possible.
ID Cards
Question No: 309 / 2006
Damian Hockney
Given the growing concerns about the likely cost and lack of effectiveness of a national
identity card scheme, does the Mayor think that the Government would be well-advised to
drop this idea and use the resources to better fund the intelligence-based activities of the
Metropolitan Police and other police forces and the security services?

I want to make London the safest city in the world and am committed to working with the
Government, the Police and other partners to achieve this vision. With the right checks and
balances in place identity cards could have the potential to make London safer.

However, identity cards should not come at the expense of police officers, and I have absolutely no
doubt, that the increase in police numbers that my budgets have paid for are greatly enhancing
the safety and security of London and represent excellent value for money.
Political Correctness and Freedom of Speech
Question No: 310 / 2006
Damian Hockney
Does the Mayor agree with the Metropolitan Police that too much police time is wasted
investigating “frivolous” public complaints about supposed “hate crimes” against groups
not specifically covered by existing legislation?

As Mayor, reducing crime and the fear of crime is one of my key priorities. All of London’s diverse
communities have the right to live free of the fear of hate crime. I am committed to working with
the police to crack down on all forms of hate crime, wherever it occurs. I fully support the Police
in properly responding to all reported incidents. Where a crime has been committed, the Police
have a duty to perform a thorough investigation, managing as appropriate any ensuing
community issues where the crime committed was perceived to be motivated by hate.
Overseas Offices
Question No: 311 / 2006
Damian Hockney
Can the Mayor detail any plans he has for opening offices abroad, and any cost

At present, I am only proposing to open offices in Beijing and Shanghai in addition to the existing
office in Brussels. In principle in light of the vital importance of globalisation for London I would
like to open offices to promote London in a larger number of key economic centres but cost factors
restrict this. Think London, the inward investment agency funded by the LDA, will be opening
an office in New York this year. China is already a major factor in the development of the world
economy. I consider it is essential to ensure that London is well-placed with regard to this key
emerging market, and this is why I have decided that opening offices there is a priority. The
budget will run at around £900k a year average over a four year period with probably slightly
greater expenditure in the first year due to office fit up, hiring staff etc - a budget of £3.755
million has been approved by the London Development Agency for establishing, staffing and
running these offices over four years, after a full evaluation for value for money and return on

The experience of opening these offices will be evaluated, and it is possible that the option of
establishing a presence (not necessarily a separate office) in other countries will be examined in
the future where this is likely to be productive and cost effective for London, particularly in terms
of supporting trade and inward investment for London.
Marshgate Lane Compulsory Purchase Orders
Question No: 312 / 2006
Damian Hockney
Can the Mayor please give a further update on the number of deals now agreed with
Marshgate Lane businesses and the progress of the Compulsory Purchase procedure for
the rest.

The London Development Agency (LDA) estimates that there are currently 304 active
businesses within the Lower Lea, Olympic and Legacy CPO boundary area.

Of these businesses, the LDA is in dialogue with 230 (representing 92% of the total workforce
within the CPO boundary area) and of these 135 (representing 77% of the workforce within the
CPO boundary area) are in negotiations with the LDA.

Of the total 304 businesses, 91 currently operate in or around the Marshgate Lane area and
represent 34% of the total workforce within the CPO boundary. Of these businesses, 27 are in
negotiations, with a preferred site, or shortlist of sites identified.

The CPO was published in November 2005. A Public Inquiry is expected to take place in the
summer. The LDA’s preferred option for acquiring land continues to be by reaching private
agreements with individuals land owners.
London’s Food Supply
Question No: 313 / 2006
Damian Hockney
You recently pledged to support local food producers, saying, “by encouraging a greater
supply of local, regional and organic food, and a diversity of outlets, from markets to local
shops, we also safeguard our food supply in the event of a crisis.” You have also recently
been instrumental in forcing the relocation and possibly closure of Britain’s oldest, most
successful fish smoker, a family-run firm employing thousands of local people in East
London. Are the interests of corporate property speculators more important than
safeguarding London’s food supply?

The draft London Food Strategy recognises the important role that a diverse, robust and vibrant
food sector provides to employment and the economy. One of its early priorities is 'ensuring
commercial vibrancy'.

With regard to the relocation of H. Forman & Sons, which has a workforce of around 40, the
London Development Agency (LDA) recognise the contribution of this and other businesses
located in the Olympic Park area and this is why the LDA is committed to helping them to
relocate successfully. The LDA is in close negotiations with Mr Forman and his advisors on this
matter and we are confident that these negotiations will lead to the identification of a suitable site.

Appendix A

Written Answers - MQT January 2006

1 / 2006 Breakdown of Policing Budget
Appendix B

Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones
Green Group Assembly Members
City Hall

24 January 2006

Dear Darren and Jenny

Budget priorities for 2006/07

Following the discussions that my staff and I have had with you over recent weeks about the
GLA Group budget for 2006/7, I am writing to set out my proposals on a number of important
environmental and other issues relating to my budget plans for 2006/07 and beyond.

First, I think it is important to record the achievements brought about by the budget priorities
we agreed as part of the last budget round. I would particularly point to:
   • Working with TfL on a raft of measures to make the capital’s transport more sustainable
   and to improve road safety:
       o An additional £5.4m for the London Cycle Network, £1.8m for cycle training for Year
       5 and 6 pupils – equating to an extra £55k per borough, and £700,000 of funding for
       cycle parking for all London schools requesting this facility
       o A £3.7m increase in TfL’s Safe Routes to School budget and a £7.2m increase in
       funding for road safety measures, enabling us to reach our target of a 40% cut in road
       deaths and serious injuries 5 years early
   • Estimated LDA expenditure of just under £32m on major sustainability programmes in
   2005/06, including:
       o Just over £8m investment in Dagenham Dock Sustainable Investment Park and a
       plastics reprocessing plant for London
       o Approximately £20m of expenditure on green and public spaces
       o The establishment of the London Climate Change Agency
   • On biodiversity, securing £500,000 funding over three years from SITA’s 'Enriching
   Nature' programme for London to take forward wildlife and habitat projects identified in the
   biodiversity action plan.

In terms of 2006/07, we need to consolidate and build on these achievements. This letter
includes my responses to a wide range of proposals put forward by the Green Group. I am very
pleased that I have been able to give a positive response in relation to all of your thirty-three
proposals. I am sure that the package agreed will produce an even stronger environmental deal
for London and will help achieve both your and my aspirations for a cleaner, greener London.
There follows a series of commitments for next financial year broken down by authority.

The London Development Agency (LDA)
   • The London Food Strategy is currently out for consultation and will require significant
   investment for it to be implemented in full. The LDA will provide a budget of £3.87m over
   the next three years to support the work of London Food and the Agency’s Food Unit.
   £653k of this £3.87m budget will be set aside for initiatives in 2006/07. A key aspect of this
   area of work will be the proposed development of a food hub in East London to link local
   smaller producers and suppliers to London’s food market
   • The delivery of a major zero carbon regeneration development remains a high priority for
   the LDA. To enable the development to progress as quickly as possible, the Agency will
   allocate £50k in 2006/07 to carry out a feasibility study, so that a site and a developer can be
   identified. The principle of exemplary sustainable development will be extended to all the
   LDA’s developments, and my office will monitor that it is exceeding or achieving Mayoral
   targets for carbon emissions, energy mix and waste
   • The creation of a Green Home Advice Centre is an exciting new proposal. The LDA will
   therefore allocate £40k in 2006/07 to carry out a feasibility study in partnership with my
   environment team at the GLA. Accompanying these actions is a firm commitment that a
   Centre will be set up – the work outlined for 2006/07 will determine timescales and budgets.
   It is important that we work with others on this and discussions will continue with partners
   (including the Energy Savings Trust, the Design Council and the London Energy
   Partnership) to see how this can best be delivered and necessary funds can be raised. My
   officers are already in discussions to attract external funding to implement this project
   • Priority needs to be attached to the establishment of a Sustainable Industries Research and
   Development Park, essentially an expanded version of the existing Environmental
   Technology Resource Centre for London. A detailed business plan with costed proposals will
   be developed by the LDA over the course of 2006/07
   • Delivering the East London Green Grid presents a major challenge given its scale and the
   number of partners involved. I have already indicated that I will safeguard the Grid through
   the Review of London Plan process – my statement of intent published in December included
   a commitment to “support the Green Grid”. In 2006/07 the following will be put in place:
          o A steering group with representatives from the Mayor’s Office, the Green Group,
          the LDA, and Policy & Partnerships (including the Architecture and Urbanism Unit)
          with dedicated officers from the GLA and LDA in support
          o A bidding strategy (approved by the steering group) to access funds held by Office
          of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is the body overseeing most of budgets for the
          development of the Grid
          o As part of that strategy, a specific commitment to submitting four bids over the
          course of the year to the ODMP for the regeneration or ‘greening’ of certain strategic
          open spaces in East London.

Transport for London (TfL)
   • TfL’s investment in travel demand management is critical to ensuring a greener, more
   sustainable London. TfL’s travel demand budget will therefore increase to £24m in 2006/07
(£10m more than in 2005/06) and grow further to an indicative level of £30m in 2007/08.
This will enable further progress to be made in important travel demand areas such as
schools, commuting, car clubs and town centres
• The delivery of the London Cycle Network + by 2009 will require further TfL investment.
The TfL budget for the Network will therefore increase by 25% so that it stands at £12.5m
in 2006/07. There will be an evaluation part way through the year to see if boroughs can
deliver on further spending during the course of the year, in which case a budget for further
deliverable spending will be made available
• Participation rates in cycling go hand in hand with the delivery of the Network. In 2006/07
TfL will lead on the following:
       o Rolling four-year action plan to increase cycle parking at rail stations, DLR and tube
        stations to meet shortfall in provision identified in a survey to be conducted annually.
        For 2005/06 £550k will be spent on cycle parking at stations, with £600k identified
        for 2006/07
       o Continuation of a programme for cycle parking at schools. For 2005/06 £700k is
        being spent on this programme and a similar amount will be spent in 2006/07
       o Continuation of the 2005/06 cycle training programme including provision of cycle
        training (which meets National Standard on Cycle Training) for year 5 and 6 school
        students with guaranteed funding of £1.8m
       o Continuation of programme to provide and improve green and off-road cycle routes.
        £1.3m is being spent on green routes in 2005/06 and £1.5m will be spent in 2006/07
       o Work towards London-wide provision of personalised support for new cyclists (e.g.
        help with equipment, maintenance, negotiating routes and traffic, and security),
        including through the delivery of schemes in three boroughs by the end of 2006/07,
        with support packages set and advertised
       o Support for “share the road” campaign, aimed at instilling mutual respect by road
       o Facilitating a “mass bike ride” in 2007 with external sponsorship
       o Encouraging boroughs to employ at least one dedicated cycling officer
• Walking maps are an important means by which more Londoners can be encouraged to
 travel by foot, rather than by car. During 2006/07 TfL will produce a route finding strategy
 and style for all of London. Additionally boroughs will be provided with funding to develop
 2D maps of their local areas
• TfL will provide at least £46.4m for road safety funding in 2006/07. As a result of this
 investment, TfL will be well placed to sustain my new targets of 50% reduction in those
 killed and seriously injured on the roads (and a 60% reduction in children killed and seriously
 injured) by 2010. A number of actions will provide further support to meet these targets:

       o To incentivise boroughs to play their part in meeting these targets, TfL will provide
        £29.4m in 2006/07 to boroughs for education, 20 mph zones and road safety
        engineering works
       o TfL will conduct a pilot study with a view to introducing a London-wide speed
        awareness and driver improvement course in conjunction with the London Safety
        Camera Partnership
       o The work that TfL has commissioned on speed limiters also known as intelligent
        speed adaptation, will be taken forward in 2006/07 with the production of a digital
        map of speed limits, a design for a pilot study and then a trial exercise on certain
        specially equipped vehicles which will be procured in 2006/07
       o Further TfL investment in school travel plans, so that spending increases from
        £10.2m in 2005/06 to £13.2m in 2006/07
• To ensure that plans for carrying waste by water are taken forward, TfL will allocate £425k
 to the development of a multi modal refuse collection vehicle in 2006/07 and a further £60k
 to a waste transport study. Existing feasibility studies on use of the Grand Union Canal in
 West London and of the River Lee in East London will also be taken forward. In addition,
 TfL has committed, in partnership with British Waterways, to building a winding hole on the
 Grand Union at West Drayton and wharf at Park Royal and estimates that £210k will be
 spent in 2006/07 on that venture
• Reducing carbon emissions from running the Tube network is one of the major
 environmental challenges facing the GLA Group. TfL will produce an action plan by the end
 of 2006, working with the newly formed Climate Change Agency, including details of targets
 to be adopted and projects to be taken forward. This will include analysis of the options for
 LUL partnering directly with energy providers to build new renewable supplies
• I want to see hydrogen vehicles form a big part of London's future transport provision. The
 LHP has developed a Transport Action Plan which will see 70 vehicles introduced into
 London by 2010. Discussions have already commenced with my functional bodies on how
 this plan, which includes approximately 10 buses and 60 cars, can be implemented. TfL has
 already established a project group which intends to invite proposals from the potential
 suppliers for approximately 10 buses during the first half of 2006. Options will be worked up
 for the deployment of the cars, including use by the GLA Group and car clubs. Up to £1.1m
 will be allocated from TfL’s budget in 2006/07 to take this forward. This is in addition to the
 £1.4m allocated to the extended trial of three hydrogen fuel-cell buses
• In addition to the above London Buses will continue to further clean up the existing diesel
 fleet following the completion at the end of December 2006 of projects which have seen the
 whole fleet upgraded to meet a minimum of Euro II engine standard and all buses being fitted
 with particulate traps. 8 Diesel Hybrid buses, which cut Co2 emissions by over 30% will be in
 service by January 2006 and I plan to see more of these introduced over the next few years.
 London Buses also plan to fit NoX abatement technology to over 1300 existing buses over
 the next four years.

• Make London a Low Emission Zone:
        o London has the worst air pollution in the UK and amongst the worst in Europe. Air
        pollution affects the quality of life of a large number of Londoners especially those
        with respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. It is estimated that every year some
        1000 deaths and a similar number of hospital admissions occur due to poor air quality
          in London. Many more people experience discomfort through air pollution
          aggravating existing conditions
          o For these reasons I am proposing to introduce a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) to cover
          the whole of Greater London. In 2008 the proposed emission standard for the LEZ
          would be Euro III for particulates (PM10). This would apply to diesel-engined HGVs
          over 3.5 tonnes, buses and coaches. In 2010, the proposed emission standard for the
          LEZ would be tightened to Euro IV for particulates (PM10) and, subject to the
          scheme’s success, I would ask TfL to investigate the case for extending the LEZ to
          light goods vehicles. The total costs (operating and capital costs minus revenue) to
          TfL of delivering the LEZ (2005/06 to 2015/16) is estimated as between £93.4m and
          £117.5m, with between £62.2m and £70.3m spent during the TfL business plan
          period of 2006/7 and 2009/10
          o My proposal to designate the Greater London area as Low Emission Zone (LEZ)
          would deliver significant air quality and health benefits by deterring the most
          individually polluting vehicles from driving in the area. On my behalf, TfL will
          conduct a public consultation on draft revisions to the Transport and Air Quality
          Strategies to take forward the LEZ proposal. Subject to the results of this
          consultation, further consultation on the detailed design of the LEZ scheme would be
          carried out.

Greater London Authority (GLA)
   • It is important that the GLA has the resources to deliver my environmental policies
   through the statutory planning regime. The recent restructuring of the Environment Team
   will provide important extra resource to enable this to happen. To supplement this, there will
   continue to be a dedicated officer in the Planning Decisions Unit. Additionally the London
   Climate Change Agency will be able to provide detailed engineering advice to planning
   officers. This should ensure that every planning application will be assessed against the
   criteria given in all of my environmental strategies. If this does not prove possible with
   current planned staff resources I shall examine the case for extra staff in the planning unit
   • Funding for biodiversity initiatives in London has been patchy in recent years. As a
   strategic authority the GLA’s role is not to be a direct provider of funding itself, but it is
   important that a degree of oversight is retained on a London-wide basis. I have therefore set
   a target to raise £120k in sponsorship for small biodiversity projects next year, all of which
   will I shall underwrite, and to work with the main London biodiversity groups to support
   their work
   • We must continue to make London’s view heard on Heathrow and the proposals for
   runway alternation and a third runway there. The GLA will therefore make available
   £80k in 2006/07 for research on the impact of the proposals pending the Government’s
   forthcoming white paper on aviation. Another £10k will be spent on polling from funding
   carried over from 2005/06
   • The 100 Public Spaces Programme is a major exercise and a priority for the GLA Group
   going forward. In 2006/07 six of the Programme’s projects will be accelerated, detailed
   timetables drawn up and progress reported
   • The Empty Homes Agency’s Empty Property Hotline is an important resource and it is
   important that a long-term secure funding source can be found. As an interim measure the
   GLA will provide £25k of funding to the Hotline in 2006/07 and the two years following
   that. If specific projects emerge in that period, the Agency can submit details for separate
   • Planning Aid for London provides strategic planning advice to community groups which
   do not have sufficient resources or capacity to access this type of information and advice.
   The GLA will continue to support Planning Aid and will make available £35k in 2006/07
   for this purpose
   • The London Waterways Commission aims to revive London’s waterways and will need
   sufficient resources to undertake this important task. Dedicated officer support from TfL
   and the GLA will therefore be provided to the Advisory Group in 2006/07
   • My budget proposals for 2006/07 will provide further support to a range of
   environmental strategies and initiatives funded and staffed by the GLA:
      o An extra post for sustainable procurement from 2006/07
      o An extra post in the waste team from 2006/07 specialising in waste disposal
      o An additional £100,000 for waste disposal work in 2006/07 and £200,000 in
      2007/08 and 2008/09
      o An additional £70,000 for work on the climate change adaptation strategy in
      o An extra post on the climate change adaptation strategy from 2007/08
      o An additional £110,000 for the work on the Water Action Framework in 2006/07.

Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA)
   • The Metropolitan Police Service’s Service Review will have far reaching consequences
   for the future of the Metropolitan Police. Understandably the review process has focused
   on workforce modernisation and creating greater efficiencies to deliver on the MPS's
   widening mission. However this should not be at the expense of resources for road safety
   policing. I am therefore committed, as part of the 2006/07 budget setting process, to
   ensuring that there is no reduction in road safety police officer numbers

   • The Safer Neighbourhoods programme has revolutionised the workings of the
   Metropolitan Police. It is therefore essential that the teams are as accessible as possible to
   the public. As part of the 2006/07 budget setting process, I shall be looking at ways in
   which this can be brought about. Every Londoner will know the phone number to contact
   their local team and how to arrange face-to-face meetings
   • Low conviction rates in rape cases are a cause of concern for me and many others. As part
   of the 2006/07 budget setting process, I shall be looking to work with the Metropolitan
   Police and other criminal justice agencies on a major campaign to reduce the prevalence of
   rape and change public attitudes. With the Metropolitan Police, I will provide financial
   support for the recommendations arising from the current Metropolitan Police Service
   internal review of the handling of rape cases, and funding to ensure a good and improving
   level of service from the Havens.

GLA Group
   • The GLA Group must work together on sustainable development issues. The GLA will
   therefore lead on Group-wide initiatives in the following areas in 2006/07:
          o Green energy and GLA Group procurement – a plan will be published during the
          course of 2006/07 showing how the Group can make greater use of green energy
          through its procurement activities
          o Energy efficiency across the GLA Group – in 2006/07 energy efficiency targets
          will be set for the Group and progress against these targets will be monitored and
          o Recycling across the GLA Group – the Group will aim to recycle 25% of its
          waste by 2007 and reach much higher targets in the following three years.
          Progress against these targets will be monitored and reported
          o Recycled products and GLA Group procurement – a Sustainable Procurement
          Code for the Group will be agreed and implemented during 2006/07
          o Sustainable Travel Plans for the GLA Group – Sustainable Travel Plans will be
          completed across the Group by the end of 2006/07
          o Environmental performance indicators and targets – in 2006/07 environmental
          performance indicators, including carbon emission reduction targets consistent
          with the London-wide targets in my Energy Strategy will be set for the Group and
          progress will be monitored and reported.

As I have already acknowledged, the contribution made by your proposals has been very
significant in improving GLA Group delivery in the current year and in shaping my plans for
next year and beyond. I look forward to continuing to work together on these important
issues for the capital.

Yours sincerely

Mayor of London

Appendix C

Written Answers – MQT January 2006

140 - 171 / 2006 - Territorial Policing

Police and PCSO strength 2000/01 to 2004/05 by borough, and April to November 2005

Appendix D

Written answers – MQT January 2006

188-192 Carjacking Offences

               Carjacking Offences, MPS, 2001 - 2005

               Year                                 Total
               2001 from Aug                                   20
               2002                                           660
               2003                                           629
               2004                                           577
               2005                                           721
               Grand Total                                   2607

Break Down by Borough

        Month                   Division                    Number
                               (from August) 2001
       2001/08                 BARNET                         1
       2001/09                CROYDON                         3
       2001/10                 EALING                         1
       2001/10                CROYDON                         3
       2001/11                HACKNEY                         2
       2001/11                CROYDON                         4
       2001/12                CROYDON                         6
       2002/01              GREENWICH                          1
       2002/01             WANDSWORTH                         15
       2002/01               HARINGEY                          1
       2002/01                CROYDON                          6
       2002/02                HACKNEY                          6
       2002/02            TOWER HAMLETS                        4
       2002/02            WALTHAM FOREST                       1
       2002/02               REDBRIDGE                         2
       2002/02               HAVERING                          1
       2002/02                NEWHAM                           2
       2002/02                LAMBETH                          1
       2002/02               ISLINGTON                         1
       2002/02                HARROW                           1
       2002/02                  BRENT                          1
       2002/02                 BARNET                          2
       2002/02               HOUNSLOW                          1
       2002/02             WANDSWORTH                          4
       2002/02              HILLINGDON                         1
       2002/02                ENFIELD                          5
       2002/02               HARINGEY                         13
       2002/02                CROYDON                          4
       2002/03               BELGRAVIA                         1
       2002/03             PADDINGTON                          2
       2002/03              SOUTHWARK                          2

2002/03           HACKNEY         8
2002/03       TOWER HAMLETS       2
2002/03      WALTHAM FOREST       9
2002/03          REDBRIDGE        5
2002/03           NEWHAM         11
2002/03           LAMBETH         5
2002/03         SOUTHWARK         2
2002/03          ISLINGTON        2
2002/03          LEWISHAM         3
2002/03             BRENT         3
2002/03         GREENWICH         2
2002/03            BARNET         1
2002/03          HOUNSLOW         1
2002/03           MERTON          1
2002/03        WANDSWORTH         2
2002/03         HILLINGDON        2
2002/03           ENFIELD         1
2002/03          HARINGEY         4
2002/03           CROYDON         5
2002/03            SUTTON         1
2002/04        MARYLEBONE         1
2002/04        PADDINGTON         1
2002/04         SOUTHWARK         1
2002/04           HACKNEY         4
2002/04       TOWER HAMLETS       7
2002/04      WALTHAM FOREST       5
2002/04          REDBRIDGE        9
2002/04           NEWHAM          5
2002/04           LAMBETH         5
2002/04         SOUTHWARK         1
2002/04          ISLINGTON        1
2002/04          LEWISHAM         2
2002/04             BRENT         6
2002/04         GREENWICH         1
2002/04            BARNET         1
2002/04          HOUNSLOW         4
2002/04           MERTON          1
2002/04        WANDSWORTH         1
2002/04         HILLINGDON        2
2002/04           ENFIELD         3
2002/04          HARINGEY         2
2002/04           CROYDON         4
2002/05        MARYLEBONE         1
2002/05        PADDINGTON         1
2002/05           HACKNEY         8
2002/05       TOWER HAMLETS       3
2002/05      WALTHAM FOREST       2
2002/05          REDBRIDGE        2
2002/05           NEWHAM          4
2002/05           LAMBETH        12
2002/05         SOUTHWARK         4

2002/05            LEWISHAM          3
2002/05             HARROW           3
2002/05               BRENT          3
2002/05              BARNET          2
2002/05            HOUNSLOW          1
2002/05             MERTON           1
2002/05          WANDSWORTH          3
2002/05              EALING          4
2002/05             ENFIELD          2
2002/05            HARINGEY          9
2002/05             CROYDON          1
2002/05              SUTTON          1
2002/06           PADDINGTON         1
2002/06           SOUTHWARK          1
2002/06             HACKNEY          3
2002/06         TOWER HAMLETS        4
2002/06        WALTHAM FOREST        1
2002/06            REDBRIDGE         4
2002/06             NEWHAM           6
2002/06             LAMBETH          3
2002/06           SOUTHWARK          3
2002/06            LEWISHAM          2
2002/06               BRENT          5
2002/06           GREENWICH          1
2002/06            HOUNSLOW          1
2002/06          WANDSWORTH          5
2002/06              EALING          1
2002/06           HILLINGDON         2
2002/06             ENFIELD          2
2002/06            HARINGEY          8
2002/07           SOUTHWARK          2
2002/07             HACKNEY          1
2002/07         TOWER HAMLETS        5
2002/07        WALTHAM FOREST        6
2002/07            HAVERING          1
2002/07             NEWHAM           9
2002/07             LAMBETH          1
2002/07           SOUTHWARK          3
2002/07            ISLINGTON         1
2002/07             BROMLEY          1
2002/07               BRENT          1
2002/07           GREENWICH          3
2002/07              BEXLEY          1
2002/07              BARNET          1
2002/07     RICHMOND UPON THAMES     1
2002/07              EALING          1
2002/07           HILLINGDON         1
2002/07             ENFIELD          1
2002/07            HARINGEY          7
2002/07             CROYDON         10
2002/08          CHARING CROSS       1
2002/08         TOWER HAMLETS        2

2002/08   WALTHAM FOREST    3
2002/08       NEWHAM        7
2002/08       LAMBETH       1
2002/08     SOUTHWARK       1
2002/08      LEWISHAM       1
2002/08       HARROW        1
2002/08         BRENT       5
2002/08     GREENWICH       3
2002/08        BARNET       2
2002/08      HOUNSLOW       2
2002/08       MERTON        1
2002/08        EALING       1
2002/08     HILLINGDON      4
2002/08       ENFIELD       4
2002/08      HARINGEY       4
2002/08       CROYDON       2
2002/09     SOUTHWARK       2
2002/09       HACKNEY       1
2002/09   TOWER HAMLETS     3
2002/09   WALTHAM FOREST    4
2002/09      REDBRIDGE      6
2002/09       NEWHAM        5
2002/09       LAMBETH       3
2002/09       HARROW        3
2002/09         BRENT       2
2002/09     GREENWICH       1
2002/09        BEXLEY       1
2002/09    WANDSWORTH       4
2002/09       ENFIELD       2
2002/09      HARINGEY       2
2002/09       CROYDON       5
2002/10    MARYLEBONE       1
2002/10    PADDINGTON       1
2002/10     SOUTHWARK       2
2002/10       HACKNEY       3
2002/10   TOWER HAMLETS     5
2002/10   WALTHAM FOREST    2
2002/10      REDBRIDGE      4
2002/10      HAVERING       2
2002/10       NEWHAM       11
2002/10       LAMBETH       1
2002/10     SOUTHWARK       3
2002/10      ISLINGTON      2
2002/10      LEWISHAM       1
2002/10       BROMLEY       1
2002/10       HARROW        2
2002/10         BRENT       1
2002/10     GREENWICH       3
2002/10        BARNET       5
2002/10       MERTON        3
2002/10    WANDSWORTH       2
2002/10        EALING       1
2002/10       CROYDON       1
2002/11   TOWER HAMLETS     6

2002/11        WALTHAM FOREST       6
2002/11            REDBRIDGE        1
2002/11            HAVERING         1
2002/11             NEWHAM          4
2002/11             LAMBETH         2
2002/11           SOUTHWARK         5
2002/11            LEWISHAM         2
2002/11             HARROW          2
 200211           GREENWICH         2
2002/11              BEXLEY         1
2002/11            HOUNSLOW         2
2002/11              EALING         2
2002/11             ENFIELD         2
2002/11            HARINGEY         1
2002/11             CROYDON         7
2002/11              SUTTON         1
2002/12          MARYLEBONE         5
2002/12          PADDINGTON         1
2002/12           SOUTHWARK         3
2002/12         TOWER HAMLETS       6
2002/12        WALTHAM FOREST       4
2002/12            REDBRIDGE        1
2002/12            HAVERING         3
2002/12             NEWHAM          9
2002/12     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    2
2002/12             LAMBETH         8
2002/12           SOUTHWARK         3
2002/12             HARROW          2
2002/12               BRENT         1
2002/12           GREENWICH         1
2002/12              BEXLEY         1
2002/12              BARNET         3
2002/12     RICHMOND UPON THAMES    1
2002/12            HOUNSLOW         1
2002/12          WANDSWORTH         3
2002/12              EALING         1
2002/12           HILLINGDON        1
2002/12             ENFIELD         4
2002/12             CROYDON         1
2003/01          PADDINGTON          1
2003/01           SOUTHWARK          2
2003/01         TOWER HAMLETS        2
2003/01        WALTHAM FOREST        3
2003/01            REDBRIDGE         3
2003/01             NEWHAM          15
2003/01             LAMBETH          2
2003/01           SOUTHWARK          3
2003/01            LEWISHAM          2
2003/01             HARROW           2
2003/01               BRENT          1
2003/01           GREENWICH          1

2003/01          HOUNSLOW        1
2003/01         HILLINGDON       2
2003/01          HARINGEY        5
2003/01           CROYDON        3
2003/02        MARYLEBONE        1
2003/02        PADDINGTON        1
2003/02           HACKNEY        1
2003/02       TOWER HAMLETS      5
2003/02      WALTHAM FOREST      9
2003/02          REDBRIDGE       2
2003/02           NEWHAM         9
2003/02           LAMBETH        1
2003/02         SOUTHWARK        2
2003/02           HARROW         1
2003/02             BRENT        1
2003/02            BARNET        2
2003/02          HARINGEY        6
2003/02           CROYDON        4
2003/03        MARYLEBONE        1
2003/03         SOUTHWARK        1
2003/03       TOWER HAMLETS      5
2003/03      WALTHAM FOREST      8
2003/03          REDBRIDGE       2
2003/03          HAVERING        1
2003/03           NEWHAM         9
2003/03           LAMBETH        2
2003/03         SOUTHWARK        5
2003/03          LEWISHAM        3
2003/03             BRENT        3
2003/03         GREENWICH        1
2003/03            BEXLEY        1
2003/03            BARNET        2
2003/03           MERTON         3
2003/03        WANDSWORTH        2
2003/03            EALING        1
2003/03         HILLINGDON       1
2003/03           ENFIELD        2
2003/03          HARINGEY        3
2003/03           CROYDON        4
2003/04         SOUTHWARK        2
2003/04           HACKNEY        1
2003/04       TOWER HAMLETS      3
2003/04      WALTHAM FOREST      2
2003/04          REDBRIDGE       6
2003/04           NEWHAM         2
2003/04           LAMBETH        7
2003/04          LEWISHAM        3
2003/04           HARROW         1
2003/04             BRENT        1
2003/04         GREENWICH        1
2003/04          HOUNSLOW        1
2003/04        WANDSWORTH        3

2003/04         HILLINGDON          1
2003/04           CROYDON           3
2003/05         MARYLEBONE          1
2003/05         SOUTHWARK           1
2003/05           HACKNEY           1
2003/05       TOWER HAMLETS         4
2003/05       WALTHAM FOREST        4
2003/05          REDBRIDGE          4
2003/05           NEWHAM           10
2003/05           LAMBETH           4
2003/05         SOUTHWARK           2
2003/05            HARROW           1
2003/05             BRENT           3
2003/05          GREENWICH          1
2003/05            BARNET           1
2003/05          HOUNSLOW           2
2003/05            EALING           4
2003/05            ENFIELD          1
2003/05           CROYDON           3
2003/06         SOUTHWARK           3
2003/06           HACKNEY           4
2003/06       TOWER HAMLETS         7
2003/06       WALTHAM FOREST        2
2003/06          REDBRIDGE          5
2003/06           HAVERING          1
2003/06           NEWHAM            2
2003/06           LAMBETH           2
2003/06         SOUTHWARK           1
2003/06           BROMLEY           1
2003/06             BRENT           1
2003/06          GREENWICH          7
2003/06          HOUNSLOW           1
2003/06            EALING           3
2003/06         HILLINGDON          2
2003/06           CROYDON           1
2003/07         SOUTHWARK           1
2003/07           HACKNEY           3
2003/07       TOWER HAMLETS         2
2003/07       WALTHAM FOREST        3
2003/07          REDBRIDGE          1
2003/07           HAVERING          1
2003/07           NEWHAM            2
2003/07    BARKING AND DAGENHAM     5
2003/07         SOUTHWARK           6
2003/07          ISLINGTON          1
2003/07          LEWISHAM           5
2003/07            HARROW           1
2003/07             BRENT           3
2003/07          GREENWICH          1
2003/07            BEXLEY           1
2003/07            BARNET           1
2003/07            MERTON           1

2003/07        WANDSWORTH           2
2003/07            EALING           3
2003/07         HILLINGDON          1
2003/07            ENFIELD          4
2003/07           HARINGEY          1
2003/07           CROYDON           1
2003/07            SUTTON           1
2003/08         PADDINGTON          2
2003/08           HACKNEY           3
2003/08       TOWER HAMLETS         5
2003/08       WALTHAM FOREST       12
2003/08          REDBRIDGE          1
2003/08           HAVERING          1
2003/08           NEWHAM            6
2003/08    BARKING AND DAGENHAM     1
2003/08           LAMBETH           1
2003/08         SOUTHWARK           1
2003/08          ISLINGTON          4
2003/08          LEWISHAM           1
2003/08           BROMLEY           1
2003/08            HARROW           1
2003/08             BRENT           7
2003/08          GREENWICH          4
2003/08            BEXLEY           2
2003/08            BARNET           1
2003/08          HOUNSLOW           2
2003/08            MERTON           1
2003/08            EALING           6
2003/08            ENFIELD          8
2003/08           HARINGEY          2
2003/08           CROYDON           4
2003/09         MARYLEBONE          1
2003/09           HACKNEY           4
2003/09       TOWER HAMLETS         3
2003/09       WALTHAM FOREST        6
2003/09          REDBRIDGE          3
2003/09           HAVERING          2
2003/09           NEWHAM            2
2003/09         SOUTHWARK           6
2003/09          LEWISHAM           1
2003/09           BROMLEY           2
2003/09            HARROW           1
2003/09             BRENT           3
2003/09            BEXLEY           1
2003/09          HOUNSLOW           2
2003/09            MERTON           1
2003/09        WANDSWORTH           1
2003/09            EALING           1
2003/09         HILLINGDON          2
2003/09            ENFIELD          2
2003/09           HARINGEY          1
2003/09           CROYDON           4

2003/10         SOUTHWARK          3
2003/10           HACKNEY          1
2003/10       WALTHAM FOREST       2
2003/10          REDBRIDGE         3
2003/10           NEWHAM           4
2003/10           LAMBETH          5
2003/10         SOUTHWARK          1
2003/10          ISLINGTON         3
2003/10          LEWISHAM          1
2003/10           BROMLEY          1
2003/10            HARROW          3
2003/10             BRENT          4
2003/10          GREENWICH         1
2003/10            BEXLEY          1
2003/10            MERTON          1
2003/10            EALING          5
2003/10         HILLINGDON         2
2003/10            ENFIELD         1
2003/10           HARINGEY         4
2003/10           CROYDON          2
2003/11         PADDINGTON         1
2003/11         SOUTHWARK          1
2003/11           HACKNEY          7
2003/11       TOWER HAMLETS        1
2003/11       WALTHAM FOREST       5
2003/11          REDBRIDGE         2
2003/11           NEWHAM           6
2003/11           LAMBETH          2
2003/11         SOUTHWARK          4
2003/11          ISLINGTON         2
2003/11          LEWISHAM          3
2003/11           BROMLEY          1
2003/11            HARROW          1
2003/11             BRENT          5
2003/11          GREENWICH         1
 200311            BARNET          2
2003/11        WANDSWORTH          3
2003/11            EALING          2
2003/11         HILLINGDON         1
2003/11           CROYDON          2
2003/12         PADDINGTON         1
2003/12         SOUTHWARK          1
2003/12           HACKNEY          3
2003/12       TOWER HAMLETS        2
2003/12       WALTHAM FOREST       6
2003/12          REDBRIDGE         2
2003/12           HAVERING         3
2003/12           NEWHAM           5
2003/12    BARKING AND DAGENHAM    2
2003/12           LAMBETH          1
2003/12         SOUTHWARK          1
2003/12          ISLINGTON         1
2003/12           BROMLEY          1

2003/12            HARROW          2
2003/12              BRENT         5
2003/12             BARNET         4
2003/12           HOUNSLOW         1
2003/12         WANDSWORTH         5
2003/12             EALING         4
2003/12          HILLINGDON        6
2003/12            ENFIELD         1
2003/12           HARINGEY         1
2003/12            CROYDON         7
2004/01         MARYLEBONE         1
2004/01         PADDINGTON         3
2004/01          SOUTHWARK         2
2004/01            HACKNEY         3
2004/01        TOWER HAMLETS       2
2004/01       WALTHAM FOREST       4
2004/01           REDBRIDGE        2
2004/01           HAVERING         1
2004/01            NEWHAM          8
2004/01            LAMBETH         5
2004/01          SOUTHWARK         3
2004/01           LEWISHAM         2
2004/01              BRENT         4
2004/01          GREENWICH         1
2004/01             BEXLEY         2
2004/01             BARNET         3
2004/01    RICHMOND UPON THAMES    1
2004/01         WANDSWORTH         1
2004/01             EALING         3
2004/01          HILLINGDON        3
2004/01            ENFIELD         3
2004/01           HARINGEY         4
2004/01            CROYDON         1
2004/02         PADDINGTON         1
2004/02            HACKNEY         1
2004/02        TOWER HAMLETS       2
2004/02       WALTHAM FOREST       3
2004/02           REDBRIDGE        5
2004/02           HAVERING         2
2004/02            NEWHAM          6
2004/02            LAMBETH         1
2004/02           LEWISHAM         1
2004/02              BRENT         4
2004/02          GREENWICH         1
2004/02             BARNET         1
2004/02    RICHMOND UPON THAMES    1
2004/02           HOUNSLOW         3
2004/02    KINGSTON UPON THAMES    2
2004/02             EALING         1
2004/02            ENFIELD         2
2004/02           HARINGEY         2
2004/02            CROYDON         2

 2004/02             SUTTON          1
 2004/03          SOUTHWARK          1
 2004/03            HACKNEY          4
 2004/03        TOWER HAMLETS        2
 2004/03        WALTHAM FOREST       7
 2004/03           REDBRIDGE         4
 2004/03            HAVERING         2
 2004/03            NEWHAM           4
 2004/03     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    2
 2004/03            LAMBETH          1
 2004/03          SOUTHWARK          1
 2004/03           LEWISHAM          2
 2004/03            BROMLEY          1
 2004/03             HARROW          1
2004//03              BRENT          2
 2004/03           GREENWICH         1
 2004/03             BARNET          1
 2004/03           HOUNSLOW          1
 2004/03             EALING          2
 2004/03          HILLINGDON         3
 2004/03             ENFIELD         1
 2004/03            HARINGEY         1
 2004/03            CROYDON          4
 2004/04            HACKNEY          3
 2004/04        TOWER HAMLETS        2
 2004/04        WALTHAM FOREST       3
 2004/04           REDBRIDGE         5
 2004/04            HAVERING         1
 2004/04            NEWHAM           6
 2004/04     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    3
 2004/04            LAMBETH          3
 2004/04          SOUTHWARK          5
 2004/04              BRENT          5
 2004/04           GREENWICH         1
 2004/04           HOUNSLOW          4
 2004/04         WANDSWORTH          1
 2004/04             EALING          1
 2004/04          HILLINGDON         2
 2004/04             ENFIELD         1
 2004/04            HARINGEY         1
 2004/04            CROYDON          2
 2004/05          PADDINGTON         1
 2004/05            HACKNEY          2
 2004/05        TOWER HAMLETS        3
 2004/05        WALTHAM FOREST       4
 2004/05           REDBRIDGE         6
 2004/05            NEWHAM           2
 2004/05     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    2
 2004/05            LAMBETH          1
 2004/05          SOUTHWARK          2
 2004/05           LEWISHAM          1
 2004/05            BROMLEY          2

2004/05              BRENT         1
2004/05          GREENWICH         1
2004/05             BEXLEY         1
2004/05           HOUNSLOW         2
2004/05            MERTON          1
2004/05         WANDSWORTH         2
2004/05            ENFIELD         4
2004/05            CROYDON         5
2004/06           BELGRAVIA        1
2004/06          SOUTHWARK         1
2004/06            HACKNEY         4
2004/06        TOWER HAMLETS       5
2004/06       WALTHAM FOREST       2
2004/06            NEWHAM          5
2004/06          SOUTHWARK         1
2004/06           ISLINGTON        2
2004/06           LEWISHAM         2
2004/06            HARROW          2
2004/06              BRENT         5
2004/06          GREENWICH         1
2004/06           HOUNSLOW         4
2004/06            MERTON          1
2004/06         WANDSWORTH         2
2004/06          HILLINGDON        1
2004/06            ENFIELD         1
2004/07         PADDINGTON         1
2004/07          SOUTHWARK         1
2004/07            HACKNEY         2
2004/07           REDBRIDGE        3
2004/07           HAVERING         1
2004/07            NEWHAM          5
2004/07    BARKING AND DAGENHAM    1
2004/07          SOUTHWARK         6
2004/07           ISLINGTON        1
2004/07              BRENT         4
2004/07          GREENWICH         1
2004/07             BARNET         2
2004/07    RICHMOND UPON THAMES    1
2004/07           HOUNSLOW         3
2004/07         WANDSWORTH         1
2004/07             EALING         9
2004/07          HILLINGDON        2
2004/07            ENFIELD         3
2004/07            CROYDON         1
2004/08       WEST END CENTRAL     1
2004/08         MARYLEBONE         1
2004/08            HACKNEY         4
2004/08        TOWER HAMLETS       1
2004/08       WALTHAM FOREST       3
2004/08           REDBRIDGE        1
2004/08            NEWHAM          6
2004/08    BARKING AND DAGENHAM    1

2004/08            LAMBETH           3
2004/08          SOUTHWARK           5
2004/08           ISLINGTON          1
2004/08           LEWISHAM           1
2004/08             HARROW           1
2004/08         WANDSWORTH           3
2004/08             EALING           4
2004/08          HILLINGDON          3
2004/08             ENFIELD          1
2004/08            HARINGEY          2
2004/08            CROYDON           1
2004/09          PADDINGTON          3
2004/09            HACKNEY           5
2004/09        TOWER HAMLETS         1
2004/09        WALTHAM FOREST        6
2004/09           REDBRIDGE          2
2004/09            NEWHAM            8
2004/09     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     2
2004/09            LAMBETH           1
2004/09          SOUTHWARK           3
2004/09           LEWISHAM           1
2004/09             HARROW           1
2004/09              BRENT           7
2004/09           GREENWICH          1
2004/09             BEXLEY           2
2004/09           HOUNSLOW           1
2004/09             EALING           1
2004/09          HILLINGDON          1
2004/09             ENFIELD          1
2004/09             SUTTON           1
2004/10            HACKNEY           4
2004/10        TOWER HAMLETS         1
2004/10        WALTHAM FOREST        4
2004/10           REDBRIDGE          3
2004/10            HAVERING          1
2004/10            NEWHAM           11
2004/10          SOUTHWARK           3
2004/10           ISLINGTON          1
2004/10           LEWISHAM           6
2004/10            BROMLEY           1
2004/10              BRENT           2
2004/10           GREENWICH          2
2004/10             BEXLEY           1
2004/10             BARNET           1
2004/10           HOUNSLOW           2
2004/10             EALING           4
2004/10          HILLINGDON          1
2004/10            CROYDON           2
2004/11          PADDINGTON          1
2004/11          SOUTHWARK           1
2004/11            HACKNEY           3

2004/11        TOWER HAMLETS        2
2004/11        WALTHAM FOREST       3
2004/11           REDBRIDGE         2
2004/11            HAVERING         1
2004/11            NEWHAM           9
2004/11     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    2
2004/11          SOUTHWARK          4
2004/11              BRENT          8
2004/11             BARNET          1
2004/11           HOUNSLOW          1
2004/11             EALING          5
2004/11          HILLINGDON         1
2004/11            HARINGEY         1
2004/11            CROYDON          3
2004/11             SUTTON          1
2004/12          SOUTHWARK          2
2004/12            HACKNEY          2
2004/12        TOWER HAMLETS        1
2004/12        WALTHAM FOREST       3
2004/12           REDBRIDGE         4
2004/12            HAVERING         2
2004/12            NEWHAM           6
2004/12     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    2
2004/12          SOUTHWARK          2
2004/12           ISLINGTON         1
2004/12           LEWISHAM          1
2004/12            BROMLEY          1
2004/12             HARROW          1
2004/12              BRENT          5
2004/12             BARNET          1
2004/12           HOUNSLOW          3
2004/12             EALING          3
2004/12          HILLINGDON         1
2004/12            CROYDON          1
2005/01          PADDINGTON         1
2005/01          SOUTHWARK          2
2005/01            HACKNEY          3
2005/01        TOWER HAMLETS        1
2005/01        WALTHAM FOREST       5
2005/01           REDBRIDGE         2
2005/01            HAVERING         1
2005/01            NEWHAM           9
2005/01     BARKING AND DAGENHAM    3
2005/01          SOUTHWARK          4
2005/01           ISLINGTON         2
2005/01              BRENT          8
2005/01           GREENWICH         3
2005/01             BARNET          2
2005/01           HOUNSLOW          1
2005/01             MERTON          1

2005/01        WANDSWORTH          2
2005/01         HILLINGDON         1
2005/01            ENFIELD         1
2005/01           HARINGEY         1
2005/01           CROYDON          1
2005/02         PADDINGTON         1
2005/02           HACKNEY          1
2005/02       TOWER HAMLETS        4
2005/02          REDBRIDGE         6
2005/02           HAVERING         3
2005/02           NEWHAM           3
2005/02    BARKING AND DAGENHAM    1
2005/02           LAMBETH          1
2005/02         SOUTHWARK          2
2005/02          ISLINGTON         1
2005/02          LEWISHAM          1
2005/02             BRENT          1
2005/02          GREENWICH         1
2005/02            BARNET          2
2005/02          HOUNSLOW          1
2005/02    KINGSTON UPON THAMES    2
2005/02        WANDSWORTH          3
2005/02            EALING          3
2005/02         HILLINGDON         2
2005/02           HARINGEY         3
2005/02           CROYDON          1
2005/03         MARYLEBONE         1
2005/03           HACKNEY          1
2005/03       TOWER HAMLETS        2
2005/03       WALTHAM FOREST       2
2005/03          REDBRIDGE         9
2005/03           HAVERING         5
2005/03           NEWHAM           3
2005/03    BARKING AND DAGENHAM    1
2005/03           LAMBETH          1
2005/03         SOUTHWARK          5
2005/03          LEWISHAM          1
2005/03             BRENT          3
2005/03          GREENWICH         2
2005/03            BARNET          1
2005/03          HOUNSLOW          1
2005/03        WANDSWORTH          1
2005/03            EALING          3
2005/03         HILLINGDON         1
2005/03            ENFIELD         2
2005/03           HARINGEY         1
2005/03           CROYDON          4
2005/04           HACKNEY          4
2005/04       TOWER HAMLETS        1
2005/04       WALTHAM FOREST       7
2005/04          REDBRIDGE         4

2005/04            HAVERING          4
2005/04             NEWHAM          11
2005/04     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     1
2005/04           SOUTHWARK          4
2005/04            ISLINGTON         1
2005/04            LEWISHAM          1
2005/04               BRENT          3
2005/04            HOUNSLOW          2
2005/04              EALING          3
2005/04             ENFIELD          3
2005/04             CROYDON          6
2005/05          MARYLEBONE          1
2005/05           SOUTHWARK          4
2005/05         TOWER HAMLETS        7
2005/05        WALTHAM FOREST        2
2005/05            REDBRIDGE         6
2005/05            HAVERING          5
2005/05             NEWHAM           8
2005/05     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     1
2005/05             LAMBETH          5
2005/05           SOUTHWARK          2
2005/05             HARROW           2
2005/05               BRENT          2
2005/05           GREENWICH          5
2005/05              BEXLEY          1
2005/05              BARNET          2
2005/05          WANDSWORTH          2
2005/05              EALING          5
2005/05           HILLINGDON         4
2005/05            HARINGEY          3
2005/05             CROYDON          2
2005/06          PADDINGTON          6
2005/06           SOUTHWARK          2
2005/06         TOWER HAMLETS        4
2005/06        WALTHAM FOREST        1
2005/06            REDBRIDGE         6
2005/06            HAVERING          2
2005/06             NEWHAM           6
2005/06     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     6
2005/06             LAMBETH          1
2005/06           SOUTHWARK          1
2005/06            ISLINGTON         2
2005/06               BRENT          6
2005/06              BEXLEY          1
2005/06              BARNET          1
2005/06     RICHMOND UPON THAMES     5
2005/06            HOUNSLOW          2
2005/06             MERTON           2
2005/06          WANDSWORTH          3
2005/06              EALING          3

2005/06           HILLINGDON         2
2005/06            HARINGEY          2
2005/07             HACKNEY          3
2005/07         TOWER HAMLETS        5
2005/07        WALTHAM FOREST        1
2005/07            REDBRIDGE         2
2005/07            HAVERING          6
2005/07             NEWHAM           6
2005/07     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     6
2005/07           SOUTHWARK          1
2005/07            ISLINGTON         1
2005/07             BROMLEY          1
2005/07             HARROW           1
2005/07               BRENT          6
2005/07           GREENWICH          2
2005/07              BARNET          4
2005/07             MERTON           2
2005/07          WANDSWORTH          1
2005/07              EALING          4
2005/07           HILLINGDON         3
2005/07             ENFIELD          1
2005/07            HARINGEY          2
2005/08             HACKNEY          4
2005/08         TOWER HAMLETS        3
2005/08        WALTHAM FOREST        6
2005/08            HAVERING          5
2005/08             NEWHAM          11
2005/08     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     8
2005/08             LAMBETH          1
2005/08           SOUTHWARK          3
2005/08            LEWISHAM          3
2005/08             BROMLEY          2
2005/08               BRENT          4
2005/08              BARNET          1
2005/08     RICHMOND UPON THAMES     1
2005/08            HOUNSLOW          2
2005/08          WANDSWORTH          2
2005/08              EALING          4
2005/08           HILLINGDON         2
2005/08             ENFIELD          1
2005/08             CROYDON          5
2005/09          PADDINGTON          1
2005/09         TOWER HAMLETS        4
2005/09            REDBRIDGE         2
2005/09            HAVERING          1
2005/09             NEWHAM           4
2005/09     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     3
2005/09           SOUTHWARK          1
2005/09            ISLINGTON         1
2005/09            LEWISHAM          2
2005/09             HARROW           1
2005/09               BRENT          4

2005/09           GREENWICH          4
2005/09              BEXLEY          1
2005/09              BARNET          1
2005/09            HOUNSLOW          1
2005/09          WANDSWORTH          2
2005/09              EALING          6
2005/09           HILLINGDON         1
2005/09             ENFIELD          3
2005/09            HARINGEY          3
2005/09             CROYDON          1
2005/10         TOWER HAMLETS       10
2005/10        WALTHAM FOREST        5
2005/10            REDBRIDGE         6
2005/10            HAVERING          2
2005/10             NEWHAM          11
2005/10     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     2
2005/10             LAMBETH          2
2005/10           SOUTHWARK          3
2005/10            LEWISHAM          2
2005/10             HARROW           1
2005/10               BRENT          1
2005/10           GREENWICH          1
2005/10              BEXLEY          3
2005/10              BARNET          2
2005/10     RICHMOND UPON THAMES     2
2005/10             MERTON           1
2005/10          WANDSWORTH          2
2005/10              EALING          6
2005/10           HILLINGDON         1
2005/10             ENFIELD          4
2005/10            HARINGEY          2
2005/10             CROYDON          6
2005/11           SOUTHWARK          1
2005/11         TOWER HAMLETS        1
2005/11        WALTHAM FOREST        3
2005/11            REDBRIDGE         4
2005/11            HAVERING          1
2005/11             NEWHAM          14
2005/11     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     2
2005/11             LAMBETH          1
2005/11             BROMLEY          2
2005/11               BRENT          3
2005/11           GREENWICH          2
2005/11              BEXLEY          2
2005/11            HOUNSLOW          1
2005/11             MERTON           1
2005/11          WANDSWORTH          1
2005/11              EALING          2
2005/11           HILLINGDON         4
2005/11            HARINGEY          4
2005/11             CROYDON          3

2005/11             SUTTON           1
2005/12            HACKNEY           3
2005/12        TOWER HAMLETS         2
2005/12        WALTHAM FOREST        5
2005/12           REDBRIDGE          5
2005/12           HAVERING           1
2005/12            NEWHAM           10
2005/12     BARKING AND DAGENHAM     1
2005/12            LAMBETH           2
2005/12              BRENT           2
2005/12             BARNET           1
2005/12           HOUNSLOW           4
2005/12            MERTON            1
2005/12         WANDSWORTH           2
2005/12             EALING           1
2005/12          HILLINGDON          3
2005/12           HARINGEY           1
2005/12            CROYDON           8

Appendix E
Written Answers – MQT January 2006

276/ 2006       Kulture2Couture

Kulture2Couture Exhibitors

1    Amanda Louise Designs
2    Anita Moore Designs
3    Axiom Clothing
4    Ayewan
5    Black Butterfly
6    Carmuh
7    Cecile Jeffrey
8    Charlie Allen
9    Cojac
10   Emmy Collins
11   Emporiana
12   E Star
13   Evoke
14   French Kiss UK
15   FunkD Up London
16   Gavin Douglas
17   Gavin Pierre Medford
18   Gisella
19   Kelly Jade
20   Konadu
21   Kosibah Creations
22   Luke Findlay Menswear
23   Maurice Sedwell
24   Natasha Wright
25   Ravoir
26   Rufus
27   Sika
28   Naomi Simms
29   Just Like Me
30   Willbaforce
31   Les Campbell
32   SIIM
33   3D by Dexter Pottinger
34   MINKA
35   Neah-Lis
36   Carlton Brown
37   Ande Sew
38   A La Carte Model Agency
39   Body Shop International
40   Saint International
41   London Fashion Forum
42   I-Define Living Ltd
43   K Benson Associates
44   London Apparel Resource Centre
45   Maurice Sedgewell
46   Charlie Allen


To top