---
election_year: 2008
party_id: conservative
party_name: Conservative Party
party_leader: Boris Johnson
political_spectrum: centre-right
victory: true
government_outcome: majority
sections:
- economy
- taxation
- health
- education
- housing
- immigration
- defence
- foreign-policy
- environment
- transport
- law-and-order
- welfare
- democracy-and-constitution
- agriculture
- energy
- devolution
- science-and-technology
- local-government
---
# Conservative Party London Mayoral Manifesto 2008
Boris Johnson
# Making London's Mayor Accountable
Boris Johnson
## Making London’s Mayor More Accountable
I believe Londoners should have a greater say on how their city is run, more information on how decisions are made and details on how City Hall money is spent.
Ken Livingstone presides over a budget of more than £10billion and demands £311 per year from the average taxpaying household in London. Yet Londoners have little confidence in the Mayor spending their money with care and prudence.
Mayor Livingstone’s extravagant spending on publicity, his jaunts to Cuba and Venezuela at taxpayers’ expense, and the recent reports of his close advisers using their influence to manipulate the expenditure of public money have all confirmed that Ken Livingstone’s Mayoralty is unaccountable and disdainful of scrutiny.
If elected, I will aim to create a different style of government at City Hall by introducing a series of measures designed to make my Mayoralty more accountable, and spending more transparent.
The first of these will be the reform of People’s Question Times, open public forums where ordinary residents are able to question the Mayor and London Assembly members. Under my plans, not only will we hold these events more frequently, but we will establish question sessions that focus on myself and perhaps my Deputy too, giving Londoners the chance to question their Mayor more directly.
By exercising the Mayor’s right to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority, I will take direct responsibility for tackling crime, and will be fully accountable for police performance. Local Borough Commanders will be required to hold monthly open public meetings so that local people can regularly hold their police to account.
Too often, Ken Livingstone has ignored the views of Londoners. Under my administration, City Hall will listen to public consultations, which will help shape policy. To this end, I will hold a new consultation on the Western extension of the Congestion Charge, and I pledge to abide by the result.
I will also take account of the concerns of all London businesses by holding biannual summits with business representatives, and I will take a less adversarial approach with locally-elected councils.
We need more open information on how City Hall spends our money. I will strip away the secrets by publishing an open register of interests for all Mayoral advisers, and I will provide a search function on the Mayor’s website enabling Londoners to instantly find all grants, contracts and programmes over £1,000. I will also conduct a full review of London Development Agency grants.
Finally, to demonstrate my commitment to accountability, if elected, I pledge to run
for no more than two terms – because leading this great city is a privilege, not a
right.
Boris Johnson
Conservative Candidate for London Mayor
## My Pledges
I will:
**1. Give Londoners More Say**
* Communicate in plain English and listen to the results of consultations.
* Hold more People’s Question Times, so Londoners can directly question the Mayor and senior officials.
* Work closely with locally-elected Councillors instead of berating them.
**2. End The Culture Of Cronyism At City Hall**
* Create a Cabinet for London, to assist in running London in a more business-like, transparent manner.
* Pledge to stand for only two terms if elected.
* Introduce tough new rules for Mayoral advisers to ensure their interests are declared and in the open.
**3. Restore Trust In How City Hall Spends Our Money**
* Launch an immediate review of City Hall finances, to report initial findings within the first 100 days.
* Launch an independent review of all London Development Agency grants.
* Enable Londoners to view all GLA grants, contracts and programmes worth over £1,000 on the Mayor’s website.
* Ensure that Londoners will not pay any more than 38p per week for the Olympics.
## 1. Giving Londoners Their Say
I will:
* Communicate in plain English and listen to the results of consultations.
* Hold more Public Question Times, where Londoners will be able to directly question the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and senior officials.
* Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority, so Londoners can hold me to account over what happens with the police.
* Ensure local police chiefs hold monthly open public meetings.
* Hold regular meetings with business leaders, so businesses large and small can have direct, personal contact with the Mayor.
* Work closely and co-operate with locally-elected Councillors instead of bullying and berating them.
## Listening To Londoners
Whenever the Mayor is required to make a major decision, he is obliged by law to hold a public consultation before making that decision. This mechanism should ensure that the views of those who will be affected by such decisions are taken into account.
However, under Ken Livingstone’s administration, public consultations have become devalued.
The Federation of Small Businesses’ assessment of the current administration is disheartening: “The sense of detachment from the political system expressed by the public is also felt by the business community. This stems from a perception that consultation is frequently a sham, with loaded questions designed to obtain a pre-ordained result. Many recent GLA consultations only serve to reinforce that impression.” 1
In the first instance we are committed to communicating in plain English. Consultation documents should be short, easy to understand and use as little jargon or legal phrasing as possible.
1 FSB, Keeping London Open for Business; A Programme for a Working Capital, March 2007, p.12.
We are also committed to approaching every consultation with an open mind. A consultation should be conducted to solicit information that will shape decision making; it should not be a box-ticking exercise.
This is in sharp contrast to the manner in which the Labour Mayor has approached consultations. Almost every time Ken Livingstone has conducted a consultation that produces results he doesn’t want, he has ignored it.
For example, in 2004 over 16,000 residents in West London responded to the consultation for the West London Tram, which was proposed to run between Uxbridge town centre and Shepherds Bush. 59% opposed the scheme.²
In a further research study commissioned by Transport for London two years later, residents’ views remained much the same; 44% were against, and 40% were for.³
In that same year, local residents voted out the Labour administration in Ealing who supported the scheme.
Yet despite such consistent levels of opposition, Ken Livingstone steadfastly refused to accept the results and dismissed the consultation, saying that it was “not a referendum on the scheme”.⁴ He continued with his plans, spending over £30 million on development alone.⁵
The Labour Mayor has constantly ignored the views of Londoners.
In 2005, 70% of residents objected to extending the Congestion Charge zone Westwards, 80% of businesses objected and 84% of other organisations objected.⁶
Also in 2005, 76% of residents opposed the Congestion Charge increase from £5 to £8, as well as 89% of businesses.⁷
Every time, Ken Livingstone has ignored the results and proceeded as planned.
His view of consultations is clear: “I would not regard the responses to public consultation as necessarily reflecting public opinion in London.”⁸
We urgently need to inject confidence into the consultation process. The Mayor must be accountable to Londoners, and they must feel that their voice will be heard – not just once every four years, but on a regular basis.
² http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/WLT_consultation_summary_brochure_FINAL.pdf
³ http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/October-2006.pdf
⁴ http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200503/4dbccec9-abf6-4fd6-8030-eeb9cd26bd22.htm
⁵ http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/question.do?id=20469
⁶ http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Report-to-the-Mayor-2005.pdf p.5.
⁷ http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Variation_order_5.pdf p.5.
⁸ The Evening Standard, 1 April 2005.
To re-build confidence we will re-open the consultation on the Western extension of
the Congestion Charge. We pledge to abide by the result of that new consultation,
whatever it may be.
We believe that this will be the first step to restoring trust in the democratic process,
and signal a clear change of direction at City Hall.
## People’s Question Time
The GLA Act 1999 obliges the Mayor and London Assembly to hold at least two
‘People’s Question Time’ sessions each year (these are open public meetings that
take place in a different borough each time). So, in the last eight years, there have
been 16 meetings, meaning that half of London’s boroughs have never had the
chance to question their Mayor directly. 9
We believe this is too infrequent, and we will increase the frequency of People’s
Question Times to a minimum of four and a maximum of six each year.
The Mayor has the discretion to change the format of People’s Question Time, and
we will exercise this in order to strengthen accountability. The sessions will be
broadened to include senior officials from the functional bodies who make decisions
on Londoners’ behalf, such as the Transport Commissioner, the Chair of Transport
for London, the Chair of the London Development Agency, the Chair of the London
Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and senior advisers to the Mayor.
Included in the maximum of six sessions, we will hold special Mayoral question times
when just the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will take questions, giving Londoners the
chance to question the leader of the London government more directly.
The sessions will be well advertised to ensure maximum participation.
## Taking Responsibility For The Police
The Mayor of London has the right to Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority – the
body set up to scrutinise and support the work of the Metropolitan Police Service.10
Boris Johnson will exercise this right so that there is a direct link between the police
and the Mayor, so the Mayor is more accountable for what happens in the police.
The MPA is the main scrutiny body for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and
sets its strategic direction.
9http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/pqt/previous_meetings.jsp
10“The Metropolitan police authority
Chairman and vice chairmen
4 (1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that—
(a) if the Mayor of London is a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, he is to be the chairman;
(b) if not, the Mayor of London is to appoint a chairman from among the members of the Authority.”
Police and Justice Act 2006, “SCHEDULE 2A 4 (1).
Although the Mayor has no operational control over the police, he has considerable influence through setting the budget, and will be able to directly set the strategic direction by chairing the MPA, to get more officers on the streets. 11
The Police and Justice Act 2006 gives the Mayor the right to chair the MPA, and Boris Johnson will exercise this right so that the police are directly accountable to the Mayor, and so that he can personally oversee his strategy to get more police on the streets and cut red tape. 12
We will use the local policing plan as a lever to deliver our priorities.
The Commissioner is required to submit a local policing plan to the MPA for its consideration. The MPA can amend that plan according to the strategic priorities it wishes to set, and the Commissioner must ‘have regard’ to that plan. The Police and Justice Act 2006 stipulates:
> “A draft of a policing plan required to be issued by a police authority under this section shall be prepared by the relevant chief officer of police and submitted by him to the authority for it to consider. The authority shall consult the relevant chief officer of police before issuing a policing plan which differs from the draft submitted by him under this subsection.”13
However, the Commissioner of the Metropolis still retains direct control, as the GLA Act 1999 stipulates:
> “The Metropolitan Police force shall be under the direction and control of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis appointed under section 9B. In discharging his functions, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall have regard to the local policing plan issued by the Metropolitan Police Authority under section 8.”14
Therefore, we will draft a new local policing plan, in consultation with the Commissioner, that will have as its priority the pledges in our crime manifesto.
## Increasing Police Accountability
Increasing police accountability will boost Londoners’ confidence in the Met. The more accountable they are, the more responsive they will be.
---
11 “The Mayor of London sets the annual budget for five functional bodies, which have become known as the 'GLA Group'. The group comprises the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.” The MPA budget factsheet, http://www.mpa.gov.uk/about/publications/factsheets/mpa-budget.htm
12 Police and Justice Act 2006, SCHEDULE 2A, Section 4 (1), http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060048_en.pdf
13 Police and Justice Act 2006, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060048_en.pdf
14Greater London Authority Act 1999 , http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990029_en_22
There should be a stronger link between local people and their Borough Commanders. There is currently a structure to enable local people to question local police chiefs, through forums like Police Community Consultative Groups and Borough Community Engagement Groups. However, in practice, most local residents do not know about such arrangements, and they are poorly attended.
We will change the format of these meetings so that all local residents can actively participate.
We will direct the Commissioner to ensure that Borough Commanders hold open public meetings every month, where they will answer questions from local residents. We will expect these meetings to be convenient and well publicised. Community engagement will be further bolstered by the greater availability of crime mapping data.
## Regular Meetings With Business Leaders
Under Ken Livingstone many sections of London’s business community have frequently felt ignored and marginalised. In their manifesto for London, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that “_business owners feel that politicians ignore their views because they are seen as less important than other groups in society_”.15
If London’s businesses are to thrive and therefore deliver jobs and prosperity for the capital it is vital that the Mayor communicates frequently and openly with all of London’s businesses – from the sole traders to the City banks.
The Mayor’s responsibility for major policy areas like transport, policing, planning and the environment means that he has a direct impact on all businesses in London – yet the Labour Mayor has frequently ignored the views of London’s business community.
The Federation of Small Businesses recently stated that “_consultation is frequently a sham, with loaded questions designed to obtain a pre-ordained result_”.16
We believe there should be greater dialogue between the Mayor and the business community in London, with levels of contact above and beyond the standard consultation procedures, which are deeply flawed at present.
We propose to hold meetings every six months between the Mayor and representatives of businesses large and small.
We are particularly keen to use these events as an opportunity to engage with some of the smaller businesses – the sole traders and the market stall holders, for instance
– who typically don’t belong to a business organisation and whose views are therefore often overlooked.
These meetings will provide an opportunity for businesses to have personal contact with the Mayor so that they can raise their concerns directly.
This will give business a greater voice in the administration at City Hall, and allow businesses to give first-hand accounts of how the Mayor’s policies affect them.
## Working With Local Councillors
Many aspects of life in London are the responsibility of locally-elected councils. Recycling and rubbish collection, social services, education, and the care of most roads are just some of the services that councils run – and for the most part run well.
Ken Livingstone’s approach is to criticise, berate and bully councils who do not always follow his policies, and to seek to strip away their powers whenever he can. A council’s first responsibility is to their local residents, and sometimes what is good for a local area may differ from the strategic direction set by City Hall.
We believe strongly in localism, and allowing councils the freedom to pursue policies that their local residents have elected them to implement. Therefore, we intend to drastically improve the relationship between City Hall and local councils by working with local Councillors, not against them.
One area for such work will be planning. Currently, the Mayor is obliged by law to produce the London Plan, which sets the general strategic direction for planning in London. Ken Livingstone has used this as a means to consistently undermine councils and try to impose his will upon them.
We will take a more flexible approach, removing the stringent 50% affordable housing target and instead seeking to agree individual targets with boroughs, that strike a balance between the London-wide strategic need and what the local area can sustainably support.
We will also reform the way in which City Hall does business with the boroughs over transport. In the past, Ken Livingstone has publicly threatened to withhold local funding because he did not agree with a council’s transport policies. For example, in 2004 the Labour Mayor issued a press release stating he was withholding £1.5 million in funding from Barnet Council because it had pursued policies opposed to his agenda.17
And there have been numerous other occasions when Transport for London has threatened to withhold funding for various schemes unless the borough went along with its instructions.
17 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=3122
We will take a lighter, more flexible approach.
We will also use our influence to ensure Council Leaders have a greater say in the appointment of Borough Commanders, so that there is stronger local accountability for the police.
We believe the tone of conversation with boroughs needs to change.
Ken Livingstone has repeatedly used the resources of his office to attack borough councils. This occurs most often in relation to housing policies. When locally-elected councils approve planning applications that do not conform to his rules, the Labour Mayor uses highly provocative language to attack them.
For example, in 2006 he attacked Hammersmith & Fulham when they went against his London Plan: “*Hammersmith's actions have the stench of Shirley Porter’s regime at Westminster Council in the 1980s*”[^18] and criticised Redbridge’s housing policies as “*a betrayal of local people*”.[^19]
His provocative language is not confined to planning. He has previously intimated that Southwark Council was racist,[^20] and accused Barnet Council of “*putting children’s lives at risk*”.[^21]
We do not believe that this adversarial approach is beneficial to Londoners, and we will focus more on working with councils, taking a constructive approach to deliver real change.
## 2. Ending The Culture of Cronyism At City Hall
I will:
* Create a Cabinet for London, to run London in a more business-like and efficient manner.
[^18]: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10269
[^19]: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=13393
[^20]: “they (the black community) experience racism within the local authority led regeneration process.” http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=6546
[^21]: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=3122
* Strengthen the accountability of Mayoral advisers by putting a separate register of interests online, and requiring them to appear before the London Assembly on a regular basis.
* Stand for only two terms.
## A Cabinet For London
Ken Livingstone’s model for the Mayoralty should not be a blueprint for future Mayors; London needs more professional, transparent government.
The current system, in which the Mayor and a coterie of advisers can take executive decisions with no formal checks and balances, is unsuitable. We believe City Hall should follow the model that is pursued at national and local level – strong cabinet government. An informal style of ‘sofa government’, in which no formal notes are taken during important meetings, leads inevitably to bad government.²²
We will strengthen the decision-making process in City Hall by introducing a Cabinet for London. The Cabinet will meet on a regular basis, formal minutes will be taken, and the full agenda papers will be put on the Mayor’s website.
This will lead to a more open and transparent decision making process, which will help restore Londoners’ trust in City Hall.
### Strengthening Accountability Of Advisers
The Mayor’s advisers have a hugely influential role in the running of London government. Two are directly appointed by the Mayor, and he can have up to twelve in total. Ken Livingstone admitted on the *Today* programme that he believes in a strong executive system. When presented with the charge that he operates a personal fiefdom he replied; “*....it’s a much better mechanism to deliver change.*”²³
In light of the scandals surrounding Ken Livingstone’s former policing and race adviser Lee Jasper, and his alleged business links to companies which have received significant funds from the London Development Agency, we believe it is time that Mayoral advisers are subject to the same levels of accountability that elected politicians are.
At present, Londoners cannot easily find out who the major Mayoral advisers are. There is no section on the Mayor’s website detailing who they are and what they do.
²² To paraphrase former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler, http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/12935/part_6/how-not-to-run-a-country.thtml?SelectedIssueDate=11%20December%202004
²³ Today Programme, 24th January 2008
It is entirely up to the Mayor to set their job descriptions, and they report directly to him.
We will make this information easily accessible for Londoners, by including a Mayoral adviser section on the Mayor’s website, which will contain the biographies of all the advisers, their direct contact details, their backgrounds and their declared interests.
The current GLA staff code of conduct requires staff to register any financial interests. However, this register is not immediately accessible by the public.
After the resignation of Lee Jasper over unethical behaviour and alleged misuse of public funds, it is clear that the system of declaring interests needs to be more open and transparent.
Therefore, we will create a separate register of interests for advisers and require that this is open for public viewing at all times on the Mayor’s website.
Currently, the London Assembly questions the Mayor and officials from the functional bodies of the GLA once a month, usually in a two-hour session at City Hall. Whilst the relevant adviser will often attend such question times, and will take questions on the work of the functional body, there are no set question times for the advisers alone.
And although the Assembly has the power to summon advisers, they usually only do so if a serious incident warrants it, which would be, in most cases, too late.
We believe that the Assembly should question Mayoral advisers at least once a month so that their activities are subject to consistent scrutiny. This will mean that, in practice, advisers will be accountable to the official scrutiny body as well as to the Mayor, ensuring that powerful advisers are of a high calibre and that their work is open to public scrutiny.
## Term Limits
In many other major cities with Mayoral systems, there are term limits.24 Ken Livingstone once supported this idea, stating: “....corruption tends to flourish the longer an incumbent is able to hold onto power. In a city that changes as rapidly as London it is hard to believe that a Mayor who has served two terms will have the freshness of approach that is required to stay abreast of such a dynamic city. I therefore recommend that no Mayor should serve more than two terms.”25
Londoners should be clear on how long their Mayoral candidates intend to serve if elected. Therefore, I will not stand for more than two terms.
24 Such as New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco,
25 Manifesto for a Mayor and Assembly for London by Ken Livingstone, March 1998
## 3. Restoring Trust In How City Hall Spends Our Money
I will:
* Launch an immediate review of City Hall and its finances within the first 100 days.
* Launch an immediate independent review of the London Development Agency and all grants given by that body.
* Enable Londoners to view all GLA expenditure over £1,000 with a comprehensive search engine on the Mayor’s website.
* Review the process of making appointments to all the functional bodies to ensure maximum transparency.
* Ensure Londoners pay no more than 38p per week for the Olympics.
## City Hall Finances
Londoners have lost confidence in the ability of City Hall to manage taxpayers’ money effectively. Ken Livingstone now takes £311 at Band D in Council Tax, and controls a budget of some £10 billion.²⁶
The recent allegations in the press concerning grants given by the London Development Agency (LDA) have served to strengthen Londoners’ belief that their money is not properly accounted for.
At the time of publication, six projects funded by the LDA have been referred to the police for criminal investigation – demonstrating the need for reform.
## Value For Money
There are a number of examples to illustrate Ken Livingstone’s cavalier attitude to taxpayers’ money:
He recently spent £36,000 on a trip to Venezuela, despite President Chavez being too busy to see him.²⁷
His ‘free’ paper, *The Londoner* costs Londoners £2.8 million a year,²⁸ yet research commissioned by the Labour Mayor shows that 45% of Londoners do not recall receiving a copy.²⁹
²⁶ Total budget requirement for the GLA is around £3 billion, for TfL it is around £6 billion and for the LDA around £800 million.
²⁷ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6145382.stm
²⁸ Mayor answers to London, 12 December 2007, Question number 2971/2007.
²⁹ Mayor answers to London, 12 December 2007, 2973/2007.
Staffing costs at City Hall have nearly trebled over recent years, from £12 million in 2000/01 to £33 million in 2005/06.30
We will launch an immediate review of City Hall finances, which will look at every aspect of Mayoral spending – including _all_ schemes and programmes – and will investigate why running costs have inflated over the last 8 years. The review will be conducted independently, and will be set up within the first 100 days.
The purpose of such a review will be to restore confidence in City Hall’s handling of London taxpayers’ money, and wipe the slate clean so London can have an administration that clearly provides value for money.
## LDA Grants
The recent controversy surrounding grants given by the LDA has shown that the procedures by which grants are given, and for following up on how such money is spent, need drastic overhaul.
We will launch a genuinely independent review of how the LDA operates, which will investigate every element of the organisation. The review will cover:
* The eligibility criteria for grants
* The follow-up criteria after grants are given
* The procedure by which grants are approved
* Appointments to the LDA Board
The review will be asked to report initial findings within six months, and be expected to produce a final report within the first year of our administration.
## Clear Money
In future, we need more transparent information about how the Mayor spends Londoners’ money. Currently, information on GLA expenditure over £4,000 to suppliers is made available quarterly to the London Assembly Budget Sub-Monitoring Committee. In addition, information can be obtained through Assembly questions to the Mayor once a month, and Freedom of Information Requests.
However, we believe this system requires the average Londoner to do far too much researching and requesting, which is a disincentive to scrutiny. We want to make access to information easier, to increase transparency and accountability.
We propose to lower the threshold at which GLA expenditure to suppliers must be reported, from £4,000 to £1,000.
30 Cash Flow, GLA Statement of Accounts 2000/01 and 2005/06.
The information would be easily accessible on the Mayor’s website, and published in
a format that is clear and easy to understand. We would look to incorporate a
comprehensive search function which will enable Londoners to find details of City
Hall spending on contracts, grants and schemes over £1,000.
A similar scheme is now operated by the U.S. government. A dedicated website has
been set up, www.usaspending.gov, and anyone is able to search for specific budget
items.
Creating a culture of transparency and openness from day one of our administration
is an essential first step in re-establishing Londoners’ trust in City Hall.
## Transparent Appointments
We will also reform the process of making important appointments to the functional
bodies under the Mayor’s control. The Mayor has influence over key appointments to
Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police
Authority, and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
We believe that all appointments should be based on merit, and not on personal
patronage. Our administration will seek to recruit the right people for London who
have the experience and the skills to deliver our agenda for change.
In order to achieve this, we will instigate a wide-ranging review of the appointments
to the boards of the functional bodies with a view to making the process as
transparent and independent as possible.
## Controlling Olympic Spending
The Olympic and Paralympic Games provide an excellent opportunity to showcase
the city and regenerate parts of East London. However, it is now clear that the
estimated cost of the Games was highly inaccurate.
The original bid estimated that the cost of the Games would be around £3billion, and
since then there have been constant reports of that figure increasing.
Reports of increases in the Olympic budget started to come to light as early as
November 2005, when the Chairman of the London Organising Committee of the
Olympic Games, Lord Coe, categorically denied the budget would double from the
figure stated in the bid, telling the BBC: “*The reports are wrong. It is not the first
scare story and it won't be the last.*”31
However, in December 2007 the Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell MP, was forced to
confirm to Parliament that the budget had almost quadrupled to over £9 billion.32
31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4459646.stm
32 RT Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Written Ministerial Statement, cols 12WS – 14WS, 10 December 2007.
Analysis by the National Audit Office confirmed that the budget was some £5 billion
higher in gross terms than originally estimated.33
In January 2007, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select
Committee criticised the Government over the financial controls, saying; “we are
*very disappointed that the cost estimates have been found to be faulty so early in the
process*”,34 and in July 2007, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the
Government had left itself “*financially exposed*”.35
Londoners are contributing around £600 million in total to the cost of the Olympic
and Paralympic Games through the Mayor’s Council Tax precept. Now we must
ensure that Londoners are protected against further financial mismanagement.36
The current cost is 38p a week at Band D, yet with the cost for the Games constantly
increasing, more and more pressure will be exerted to increase Londoners’
contribution. We will resist this pressure to ensure that Londoners are not penalised
for the Government’s financial incompetence.
33 http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/0607612es.htm
34 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcumeds/69/69i.pdf
35 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/london_2012/article2051221.ece
36 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcumeds/69/69i.pdf
# Backing London Business
Boris Johnson
## Backing London Business
Our capital is the economic engine room of the nation. London and Londoners contribute around £90 billion to the British exchequer each year and generate 17% of the UK’s GDP. At the core of this performance is London’s business community. In particular, our famous financial services sector employs hundreds of thousands of the brightest and best minds from around the world, themselves drawn here by London’s dynamism and prosperity.
But this success is not just powered from the glittering citadels in the square mile and the large multinationals based there; it has also been driven by London’s growing creative industries, its small and medium enterprises and sole traders. The millions of people who work in business here have all, in one way or another, contributed to London’s phenomenal success.
We must not be complacent; the fortunes of great cities rise and fall, and their success must be nurtured diligently. Observers are warning that business confidence in London has fallen to an all-time low. London’s businesses are now facing massive economic uncertainty. As consumers get nervous and borrowing becomes more expensive, economic growth is slowing.
However, an economic slowdown is not the only challenge facing London’s economy. Even before the credit crunch hit, the capital’s economy was showing some signs of wear and tear; London recently lost its lead as the most entrepreneurial region in the UK, and under Ken Livingstone’s Mayoralty the number of new businesses registered each year has fallen.
As the cost of living and working in London has escalated over the last decade, so the financial burden on business has grown. To add to this, a decade of Labour Government has meant a major increase in taxation as well as a raft of new regulations. The result of this is that people are increasingly disinclined to start their own enterprise, and existing small businesses are finding it harder to grow – all of which diminishes London’s economic potential.
Moreover the historic success of London’s businesses has not resulted in prosperity across the city – indeed the capital has the highest child poverty rate in the UK, and contains four of the eight most deprived local authority areas in the country. The ability of politicians to address these social inequalities largely depends on the growth and strength of London’s economy.
In these circumstances it is essential that the Mayor takes a positive lead and ensures the best possible conditions for London businesses – large and small.
From an international perspective, that means ensuring that the City of
London remains the most attractive and competitive location for larger
businesses to base their offices. We must never forget that most can just as
easily conduct their operations from New York, Shanghai, Dubai or Mumbai –
and we must keep striving to be the best.
A major reason for the City’s appeal as a place to do business is an attractive
regulatory and taxation regime. It is essential that we continue to resist
unnecessary regulation and over-taxation that would drive business and
investors elsewhere. I am acutely aware of this threat, and if elected will use
every strand of Mayoral power to fight against Labour Government overregulation and over-taxation.
Of course, drawing business to London is about more than promising profit
margins, it’s about appealing to people. If we are to continue to attract some
of the brightest people and the most profitable businesses from around the
planet, we must make sure this city is a welcoming and hospitable place; that
the infrastructure is efficient and the urban environment attractive. We must
continually promote the fact that London is a pre-eminent cultural centre and a
dynamic and vibrant place to be. Above all we must tackle the scourge of
violent crime that is fast tarnishing London’s reputation.
The Mayor must also stand up for London’s small businesses, which have
suffered terribly over the last decade as a result of Labour Government
taxation and over-regulation. If elected I will fight to cut the red tape that is
strangling aspiration and ambition, so that our small and medium enterprise
(SME) sector can flourish. And I will work to ensure that our infrastructure sets
the right conditions for entrepreneurial success – efficient transport, rigorous
policing, reasonable rent costs, and so on. SMEs add greatly to London’s rich
variety and they must be championed.
And the Mayor must create the right conditions for individual success by
promoting and providing skills and training, so that Londoners are equipped
with the qualifications that employers need. I am determined to defeat the
poverty of aspiration that plagues parts of London. When our young people
are dispirited and disengaged our whole society suffers. Everyone should be
able to participate in the life and economy of our great city, and everyone
should enjoy the same opportunities to succeed.
I want to broaden aspirations and tap into latent ambition. First, we need an
exciting skills strategy that clearly illustrates to young people how they can
invest in a brighter future for themselves. And we must also pay greater
attention to encouraging enterprise and entrepreneurialism, particularly
2
amongst those who are currently underrepresented in London business,
which includes women, those from BAME communities, and young people
from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As Mayor I will be a champion for all London business. I will defend the City
against the onslaught of Labour Government legislation; stand up for small
businesses whose livelihood is threatened by giant corporations or the
escalating cost of working in London; and help aspirant Londoners gain the
skills they need to achieve their ambitions.
I will establish genuine communication channels between City Hall, City
business and small businesses, and I will work with London’s entrepreneurs
and business leaders to keep our capital competitive and improve Londoners’
quality of life.
Boris Johnson
Conservative Candidate for London Mayor
3
# My Pledges
I will:
## 1. Work With London’s Businesses
- Hold biannual summits with representatives from across London’s business communities.
- Listen to the results of consultations.
- Review the LDA’s enterprise activity to ensure that London’s businesses and communities are getting the support they need.
- Make it easier for businesses to do business with the GLA group, the London 2012 Organising Committee and Olympic Delivery Authority.
## 2. Make London An Attractive Place To Do Business
- Make business crime a police priority.
- Encourage planners to use section 106 to secure affordable premises for small businesses.
- Scrap the £25 Congestion Charge which would cost London’s businesses thousands of pounds a year.
- Help all businesses avoid congestion charge fines by allowing them to pay by account.
- Improve London’s transport infrastructure.
- Champion London at home and abroad.
## 3. Provide Training That Businesses Need And Londoners Want
- Cut through bureaucracy and consolidate the Adult Skills agendas and funding organisations in London.
- Listen to employers and Londoners.
- Promote skills to Londoners through a single branded service for advice and guidance.
- Champion and support London’s 2011 WorldSkills Competition.
## Working With London’s Businesses
I will:
* Hold biannual summits with representatives from across London’s business communities.
* Listen to the results of consultations.
* Review the LDA’s enterprise activity to ensure that London’s businesses and communities are getting the support they need.
* Make it easier for businesses to do business with the GLA group, the London 2012 Organising Committee and Olympic Delivery Authority.
## Listening To Businesses
London’s Mayor must listen to London’s businesses. Representatives of London’s business community complain that currently “business owners feel that politicians ignore their views”.¹
However, in an increasingly fragile economic climate it is more important than ever that businesses’ needs are understood and taken into account.
That is why we will hold **biannual summits** with representatives from across London’s business communities. These events will be open to all businesses, from sole traders to large corporations. They will provide an opportunity for businesspeople to put their concerns and recommendations directly to the Mayor and to hold him to account for his actions.
## Real Consultations
We must also improve the way that the GLA and its subsidiaries consult London’s businesses on specific projects.
The Federation of Small Businesses reports that businesses currently feel “a sense of detachment from the political system This stems from a perception that consultation is frequently a sham, with loaded questions designed to obtain a pre-ordained result. Many recent GLA consultations only serve to reinforce that impression”.²
¹ FSB, Keeping London Open for Business; A Programme for a Working Capital, March 2007, p12
² Ibid.
The Confederation of British Industry has called on the next Mayor to “work with businesses rather than presenting businesses with virtually firm proposals”.3
We are committed to taking businesses’ views seriously and to **approaching every consultation with an open mind**. Consultations will be used to help shape decisions, not simply to conform to legal requirements. As a start we will **re-open consultation on the Western extension** of the Congestion Charge, and promise to abide by the results.
This is in stark contrast to Ken Livingstone’s consultation on the extension. The London Chamber of Commerce has reported that 96% of businesses said “they felt the consultation [on the Western extension] had no impact upon the Mayor’s decision making.”4 Retailers report that the extension has had a significant adverse impact on their businesses, and it is time that their views were taken into account.5
## Reforming The LDA
The Mayor must also listen to businesses’ views when it comes to the London Development Agency (LDA).
In the wake of recent controversy we are committed to conducting a **thorough review of all of the LDA’s expenditure**.
We need to combine this review with a **business-led evaluation of the LDA’s operational structure and business support services**.
This year the LDA plans to spend £82 million on various initiatives to encourage enterprise.6 This is a third of their (non-Olympic) programme budget.7 However, businesses report confusion over what services the LDA offers and how it spends this money.8
In the future we will make sure the LDA **adopts business-like financial transparency and reporting principles**. This will go some way to ensuring that it regains the trust and credibility of the business community, and guarantees value for money.
3 CBI, London Business Manifesto, March 2008, p7
4 LCCI, Going West, February 2006, p24
5 LCCI, London Business Manifesto 2008, March 2008, p9
6 The Greater London Authority’s Consolidated Budget and Component Budgets, Table 7.8, p37
7 Total LDA Programme spend is £466.4 million, Olympic Legacy spending constitutes £195.3 million of this. The Greater London Authority’s Consolidated Budget and Component Budgets, Table 7.8, p37
8 In the GLA’s component budget the money is accounted for as follows: ‘Address barriers to enterprise start-up, growth and competitiveness’ - £44 million; ‘Maintain London’s position as key enterprise and trading location’ - £12 million; ‘Maximise the productivity and innovation potential of London’s enterprises’ - £26 million. The Greater London Authority’s Consolidated Budget and Component Budgets, Table 7.8, p37
We will also look to restructure the LDA’s business support services to make
them more accessible and relevant to London’s businesses. In the last review
of their business support services, the LDA reported that businesses “are
confused by the services on offer and don’t know where to go to get good
advice and information”.9
The review reported that many businesses believe the LDA’s support would
be “time consuming to access or not suited to their organisation”. It concluded
that this was “caused in part by duplication, fragmentation and overlapping of
service offers and providers”.10
Twenty months on, business organisations are still reporting confusion over
ways to access business advice and services.11
To end this confusion we will work closely with London’s businesses to
restructure the LDA’s business support services. The fundamental aim of
this reorganisation will be to create a service that:
1. Encourages and helps adult Londoners to start their own businesses
2. Introduces young Londoners to the opportunities of entrepreneurialism
3. Helps fledging businesses grow
4. Ensures that London remains attractive to global businesses and
investment
We would also like to realise the enormous entrepreneurial potential among
BAME communities and women.
Only 13% of the UK’s small businesses are led by women.12 This compares
poorly to the US, where 30% of SMEs are led by women. If we could match
the American rate of female entrepreneurship in Britain there would be
700,000 more businesses in the UK.13
We are committed to working with local communities and business
groups to increase enterprise participation among under-represented
groups.
9 LDA, Business Support Review Summary, January 2006, p4
10 LDA, Business Support Review Consultation Report, July 2006, p4
11 ‘FSB research consistently shows business owners suffer from a lack of information about regulatory requirements
and about ways of accessing business advice and services to help grow their businesses. In part this is due to a
confusing range of organisations claiming to offer business advice, but whose areas of expertise mean they cannot
present a complete picture. There is a clear need for a more co-ordinated approach to the promotion of services and
information available to the self-employed and to micro- and small businesses’. FSB, Keeping London Open for
Business; A Programme for a Working Capital, March 2008, p12
12 DBERR, Annual Small Business Survey 2006/07, pp10-11.
13 Rt. Hon. Stephen Timms MP, Speech at Westminster Central Hall, London, 14 November 2007
7
We will also tackle under-representation by **increasing the LDA’s work with young people**. We will learn from the best practice of other Regional Development Agencies. Several other RDAs have run very successful schemes in this area, for example by creating links between schools and local businesses to broaden young people’s career aspirations and provide them with business role models and potential mentors.[^14]
## Linking Business To Local Government
Small businesses in London are the least likely in the country to have contracts with their local government authorities.[^15] The Mayor should take the lead in redressing this by making it easier for small business to access public sector contracts.
The GLA Group procurement contracts are worth around £5 billion annually[^16] and the official total budget for the Olympics stands at £9.3 billion[^17]– though recent reports suggest that the real figure could spiral to £20 billion.[^18] We need to make sure that all of London’s businesses can benefit from this spending by **making it easier for SMEs to access GLA group and Olympic contracts**.
We believe that the current procurement processes may disadvantage many SMEs through the sheer weight of bureaucratic requirements. The FSB have called for the GLA to avoid “the unnecessary and unjustified bundling of contract requirements to preclude small business participation”.[^19] We will work with businesses to streamline the process, for example by making the pre-qualification procedures simpler and entry-level requirements less onerous.
We will also investigate **introducing a target for the GLA and its functional bodies to procure a given proportion of goods and services from local and small businesses**.
[^14]: See, for example, the East of England RDA’s *A Shared Vision*; *The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England*
[^15]: FSB, *Lifting the Barriers* 2006, p36
[^16]: LDA Corporate Plan 2007-10, p57
[^17]: Tessa Jowell, Hansard, 10 Mar 2008 : Column 17
[^18]: *The Times*, 9 April 2008
[^19]: FSB, *Keeping London Open For Business*, March 2008
## 2. Making London An Attractive Place To Do Business
I will:
* Make business crime a police priority.
* Encourage planners to use section 106 to secure affordable premises for small businesses.
* Scrap the £25 charge which would cost London’s businesses thousands of pounds a year.
* Help all businesses avoid Congestion Charge fines by allowing them to pay by account.
* Improve London’s transport infrastructure.
* Champion London at home and abroad.
### Tackling Business Crime
Crime in London is estimated to cost business £1.4 billion annually.20 Last year the Metropolitan Police reported that there were 109,777 incidences of business crime.21
The actual figures for business crime are likely to be much higher, as business crime is under-reported. The Federation for Small Businesses report that one-third of businesses don’t bother to report crime, and that each year 50% of London’s businesses are victims of crime.22
Crime hurts London’s businesses directly, but also indirectly by deterring investment and making London a less attractive place to live. If we want to encourage enterprise and investment the problem needs to be addressed head on.
Boris Johnson will exercise his right to chair the MPA and will make **tackling business crime one of the Metropolitan Police’s priorities.**
20 http://www.london-first.co.uk/safer-business/
21 Metropolitan Police, Performance Information – 2007 Annual (Calendar Year) Crime Stats. Statistic given is for Business Crime which includes robbery of business property, theft employee, theft from shops, burglary non-dwelling, retail deception and fraud & forgery.
22 FSB: The Forgotten Fifth: 10 point plan to tackle business crime, p2
We will adopt a zero-tolerance approach to all business crime, and want
businesses to report all crimes.
To help tackle the problem of under-reporting we propose a **non-emergency
phone line** to make reporting offences of all kinds far easier, whilst also
freeing up the 999 number for emergencies.
The Metropolitan Police are currently planning to pilot a **non-emergency
number** –‘101’ – in three boroughs (Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham,
and Newham).²³ National trials of the scheme have proved very successful,²⁴
and the MPA have described the scheme as “a key step in delivering an
accessible London and enhancing the safety of citizens”.²⁵
If the pilot proves successful, we will look at options for **rolling out a non-
emergency number** throughout London.
In addition to reporting all crime, we also want businesses to work with their
local police force to tackle crime. We have already laid out plans for **New
York-style crime mapping and monthly public meetings between
Borough Commanders and local businesses and residents.**²⁶ This will
give business owners access to comprehensive information about crime in
their area, and the opportunity to discuss the problems with their local police.
The Mayoral business summits will also provide an opportunity for businesses
to work with the Mayor in his capacity as Chair of the MPA to develop
strategies for tackling business crime in London.
## Saving Small Shops
Campaigners report that more than 7,000 individual or family-owned shops in
London have closed over the last six years.²⁷ The latest survey of small shops
in the capital found that the top two pressures they faced were competition
from local supermarkets and rising rents.²⁸
²³ MPA, *London 101 Report*, 31 January 2008
²⁴ The report on the 2007 floods by the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser was published on 17 March 2008 (DCLG,
*Facing the Challenge*). The report noted “The experience of the use of the 101 service during the widespread
flooding in Sheffield demonstrates the considerable advantages that could be available from the use of the system.”
Despite this success and expenditure to date of £41 million, the Government have decided not to roll the scheme out
nationally. See *Hansard*, 27 November 2007, col. 362W and *Hansard*, 7 January 2008, col. 254W.
²⁵ http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2008/080131/11.htm
²⁶ We are committed to creating publicly accessible crime maps which detail incidences of crime throughout London.
This will provide businesses with information about the level and types of crime in their areas (or prospective
locations). We will also ask Borough Commanders to hold monthly public meetings to discuss crime, and strategies
to prevent it, with local businesses. See our crime manifesto, *Making London Safer*
²⁷ Evening Standard, Save our Small Shops, 12 September 2007
²⁸ London Chamber of Commerce, London small shops survey, 2007
Surveys suggest that property costs in the capital are rising faster than sales growth, making it hard for smaller independent business in the capital to survive.
To help protect small businesses we will amend the London Plan to encourage borough councils to use a section 106 agreement to secure a proportion of affordable units for small independent retailers when approving large retail developments.
## Making The Congestion Charge Fairer
Ken Livingstone’s plans to charge the drivers of larger vehicles £25 a day to enter the congestion charging zone will have a significant impact on London’s businesses. Any small business with a van will be forced to pay up to £6,000 a year for the privilege of working in the centre of the capital. £6,000 can be the difference between a small business staying afloat and going under. We therefore promise to **scrap the £25 charge** before its planned introduction in October.
We will also make it easier for businesses to pay the Congestion Charge and avoid fines by **introducing an account-based system that lets businesses pay by direct debit**, from 2009.
Currently Transport for London only offers larger business fleets the convenience of paying the Congestion Charge on a monthly basis. We believe all businesses should have this option.
We are also committed to reopening consultation on the Western extension and abiding by the result.
## Improving London’s Transport Infrastructure
London’s businesses are dependent on an effective public transport system. Over 97% of the City of London’s companies believe that problems with commuting have reduced their staff’s productivity, while many other businesses depend on transporting their goods and services around the capital.
Rail transport in and out of London is currently over-crowded, often delayed and extremely expensive. We will **lobby the Government to invest in additional rail capacity in South London**, and on taking office will demand
an emergency summit with train operating companies and the Department for
Transport.
Around 70% of London’s jobs are currently located outside central London,
and nearly two thirds of the expected growth in employment is also
anticipated to occur outside the central London zone.32 It is therefore
imperative that we do more to improve the transport links in outer London.
We will trial orbital bus routes in the outer suburbs to connect key
**transport hubs** such as town centres and railway stations. These new
express routes will improve the public transport options and should reduce
road congestion for businesses and their staff.
We want the Government to guarantee that, despite Metronet’s failures, all
planned Tube investments will still go ahead.
We plan to institute **greater independent oversight** over Tube and
**Crossrail investments** – to ensure that the mistakes of Metronet aren’t
repeated and that Londoners get better value for money from their
investments.
Despite a more than 400% rise in capital expenditure on the Tube since 2000,
the number of signal failures has increased.33 We will make sure future
investment is more effective by strengthening the role of the independent
arbiter.
Businesses will be footing a large proportion of the cost of Crossrail through
supplementary business rates. Ken Livingstone has admitted that if the
project runs over budget it is likely that businesses will be forced to meet the
extra costs.34 Businesses therefore need and deserve assurance that their
contribution will not be treated as limitless, and that their investment will be
subject to proper independent scrutiny.
We will also seek to broker a ‘**no strike**’ deal with tube workers to protect
London’s businesses from the disruption and costs of the ever-more frequent
tube strikes. The Financial Times reported that the last Tube strike cost
London up to £48 million in lost productivity.35 We need to do all we can to
protect the capital from the economic costs of industrial action in the future.
32 London Assembly, *Semi-Detatched: Reconnecting London’s Suburbs*, June 2007, p40
33 Theresa May MP, information obtained from FOI requests and Parliamentary Answers.
34 Ken Livingstone, London First Hustings, 26 March 2008
35 FT.com, *RMT calls off London Tube strike*, 4 September 2007
## Championing London At Westminster
The Mayor does not determine the tax and regulation policies which are one of the most important determinants of the success of London’s economy. However, although he has no direct control over the Government’s economic and business policies, the Mayor must champion the needs of London’s businesses at Westminster.
After ten years of a Labour Government the UK’s economy is getting less competitive.36 While other countries are cutting the tax rate for small businesses, this Government is increasing tax rates and cutting reliefs. In the last budget we also saw an 80% capital gains tax hike for entrepreneurs and attacks on non-domiciled status.
High taxes and over-regulation don’t just make life difficult for existing businesses; they also deter highly mobile global businesses from locating here. London is competing in a global market for many of these firms, and it is vital that we remain an attractive location for international investment.
As we enter a period of global economic uncertainty, now more than ever London needs someone who will champion the needs of the capital’s businesses.
We will therefore **work with businesses to make sure Westminster listens to London’s business community.** London contributes a huge amount to the UK economy and directly to the Treasury – estimates suggest that the Government may raise as much as £20 billion more from London than it spends on it.37 That contribution means that the Mayor can, and should, have huge influence on politicians at Westminster.
## Championing London Internationally
We also need to make sure that international investors continue to see London as an attractive place to do business.
We will continue to work with the Lord Mayor of London, UKTI, DBERR, the FCO and organisations such as Think London, LCCI and London’s Local Chambers to **ensure that London remains one of the world’s leading business centres.**
Whilst we fully endorse the representation of London overseas, we are also committed to reviewing the GLA’s offices abroad to ensure that London is
36 Britain has dropped from fourth to ninth in the international competitiveness league under Labour ; Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, World Economic Forum, 31 October 2007
37 Oxford Economics, London’s Place in the UK Economy 2007-08, The City of London Corporation
getting maximum value from the money being spent on them. This review will
be conducted as part of our larger investigation of the GLA and its agencies’
financial expenditures.
14
## 3. Providing Training That Businesses Need And Londoners Want
I will:
* Cut through bureaucracy and consolidate the Adult Skills agendas and funding organisations in London.
* Listen to employers and Londoners.
* Promote skills to Londoners through a single branded service for advice and guidance.
* Champion and support the London’s 2011 WorldSkills Competition.
### London’s Skills Shortages
Businesses do not just depend on London’s infrastructure; they also depend on London’s human capital, and many are concerned about the lack of skills among Londoners.
Access to a skilled workforce is one of the most important factors affecting business performance,38 and according to the London Chamber of Commerce 65% of London’s businesses expect to be troubled by skills shortages in the next six months.39
Many Londoners lack the basic skills which are the threshold for employability. Fewer than 50% of Londoners have the numeric skills expected of an 11 year old and nearly a fifth have literacy skills below that level (Key Stage 1). More than 600,000 adult Londoners – 13.3% of the population – have no qualifications at all.40
Under-skilled Londoners are losing out in the job market. London has an employment rate of 69%41 – the lowest in the country.42 Part of this is because there are too many workers with low skills – three for every low-skilled job.43
38 CBI, *London Business Manifesto*, March 2008, p3
39 London Chamber of Commerce Press Release, November 19th 2007
40 Skills and Employment in London: Proposals for the London Skills and Employment Board’s Strategy
41 London LSC, *Record investment to help London’s unemployed get jobs*, 5 February 2008
42 Skills and Employment in London: Proposals for the London Skills and Employment Board’s Strategy
43 London Skills & Employment Board, *Globalisation, Employment and Skills: The London Story*, October 2007, p49
There is also an increasing demand for highly-skilled labour in the capital.
Over 40% of London’s jobs already require degree-level qualifications and this
is expected to rise to 50% by 2020.44
In this context we condemn the Government’s plan to cut funding for
equivalent or lower qualifications, a move which will make it harder for
Londoners to retrain. The £100 million funding cut will hit London universities
disproportionately hard, and we are therefore calling on the Government to
reverse their decision.45
We urgently need to tackle London’s skills shortage – not simply to ensure
that businesses have the staff they need, but also to improve Londoners’
quality of life.
Worklessness has numerous social and economic effects; one of the most
disturbing is its contribution to child poverty.46 London has the highest rate of
child poverty in the UK – four in ten children in the capital live in income
poverty.47
Skills are also an important part of improving social mobility; children with
parents in unskilled work have a 20% probability of achieving 5 or more
GCSEs at grade A* - C, compared with 69% for children with managerial or
professional parents.48
Despite an annual expenditure of more than £2.5 billion on adult skills in
London, the current training provision doesn’t seem to be delivering for
Londoners or employers.49
The gap between London’s worklessness rate and the rest of the country’s
continues to widen.50 We have the fewest participants in ‘Train to Gain’
programmes of any region, and disproportionately few compared to our share
of the population.51 The number of apprenticeships in London also decreased
between 2004-05 and 2005-06,52 and the success rate of apprenticeships is
10 percentage points lower than most other regions in the country.53
44 Skills and Employment in London: Proposals for the London Skills and Employment Board’s Strategy
45 London’s institutions will lose a total of £54 million in funding. Birkbeck College have calculated that will need to
increase fees from £1,248 per annum to £4,101 to make up the shortfall – driving up the cost of a four year degree
from £4,992 to £16,404.
46 London Skills & Employment Board, Globalisation, Employment and Skills: The London Story, October 2007
47 Ibid.
48 Interim Report, Leitch Report of Skills, December 2005, p.34,
49 http://www.london.gov.uk/lseb/faqs.jsp#5
50 London Skills & Employment Board, Globalisation, Employment and Skills: The London Story, October 2007, p49
51 Written Answer, 21 Jun 2007 : Column 2044W. Train to Gain is service provided by the Learning and Skills Council
(LSC) which aims to help businesses train their staff.
52 Written Answer, 28 Nov 2007 : Column 501W
53 Written Answer, 30 Jan 2007 : Column 206W
16
Consolidating Adult Skills Provision
To address this problem we will start by restructuring the bodies
responsible for skills provision in order to minimise bureaucracy and
maximise the return from investment in skills.
Currently there are, in addition to the 32 boroughs, at least seven major
bodies involved in providing skills in London. These bodies are: the London
Skills and Employment Board, the London Learning Skills Council, the
Regional Skills Council, the (various) Sector Skills Councils, the London
Development Agency, Department of Work and Pensions (through JobCentre
Plus) and the European Social Fund.
The London Skills and Employment Board (LSEB), established in December
2006, has the potential to address this problem by presiding over adult skills
provision in the capital. However, currently LSEB has no budget of its own or
any control over other bodies’ budgets – it simply “determines the
framework”54 for the allocation of the London Skills Council budget for adult
skills.55
The LSEB also claims to “influence the spending and priorities of other key
agencies such as Job Centre Plus and the LDA, who jointly spend over £2
billion on adult skills in London”.56
However, in practice there is little evidence of coordination between these
funding bodies. In response to the LSEB’s 2008/09-2010 draft strategy, the
CBI emphasised the need for “a unified employment and skills system”.57
In their response the London councils call for “fundamental changes” to
address the fact that “there is no overall effective employment and skills
system”58 and London Learning and Skills Council called for “strategic
regional coordination across all 32 boroughs in order to provide a coherent
service for learners”.59
The Mayor has conceded the need to address this problem and plans to
announce proposals for a joint skills appraisal system for the summer of
2008.60
54 Skills and Employment in London: Proposals for the London Skills and Employment Board’s Strategy
55£603 million – Learning and Skills Council London Regional Commissioning Plan 2008-09, February 2008, p6
56 http://www.london.gov.uk/lseb/faqs.jsp#5
57http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/Regions.nsf/802737aed3e3420580256706005390ae/dc2e011cb29458a780256731005e
42d6?OpenDocument
58 http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/1315/Appendix%203%20-
%20LSEB%20draft%20strategy%20response.doc
59 London Learning Skills Council, Response to Proposals for the London Skills & Employment Board’s Strategy, 3
December 2007, p4
60 LSEB, The London Approach; Improving Skills and Employment Outcomes for Londoners, March 2008, p6
17
We believe that this approach lacks ambition, and therefore we plan to go further. We will investigate options to **give the LSEB more control over the LDA’s budget for adult skills.**
We will also begin immediate discussions with the Government about the possibility of **creating a single pool of public funding for skills in London** by consolidating some of the various agencies’ spending into a single budget under the direction of the LSEB.
This would make one body, directly accountable to Londoners through the Mayor, in charge of improving skills training in London – and ensure the maximum return on investment in skills by minimising bureaucracy.
## Listening To Employers And Londoners
We also need to work closely with Londoners and businesses to ensure that they get the training they need and want.
Discussions with stakeholders suggested that London’s particular circumstances means we need increased emphasis on ESOL and acquiring skills at the basic and higher levels (rather than the intermediary stages which are the Government’s current focus).
This approach will allow us to address the skills deficits which are a barrier to any employment, and ensure that the population up-skills in line with an increasing demand for highly-qualified employees.
In order to be successful we need to **take a more employer-led approach** to training provision. For example, by offering flexible programmes – such as half-day courses – or apprenticeships designed around real jobs.
To create the training opportunities businesses can use we need to listen to them. SMEs provide 40% of London’s business employment but have little representation on the London Skills and Employment Board – we will correct this by **giving SMEs greater representation on the LSEB.**
## Promoting Skills Training To Londoners
It isn’t enough to change the supply of training programmes; we also need to see increased demand. That means making sure Londoners understand the benefits of acquiring new skills and know how to access skills training.
The LSEB’s draft 2008-2009 strategy calls for an engagement campaign to make young people “more motivated and confident that they can fulfil their
potential through the skills and employment system”.61 The board also plans
to “develop an effective London careers advice service”.62
We support these aims, but believe we should go further. As we move
towards a more integrated approach to skills funding and provision we need to
**create a single umbrella brand for promoting skills training and**
**providing skills advice** in London that would become the trademark for adult
skills in the capital.
This brand – which might be called ‘London Learns’, for example – should be
used across the agencies involved in skills provision. All skills activities, where
possible, should be conducted under this brand to increase brand awareness
and create a consolidated ‘face’ for skills training in London.
The LSEB has already committed to creating an Adult Advancement and
Careers Service for London that intends to provide the full range of support for
people to ‘get in, stay in and get on’ in the London labour market.63
We believe that this organisation should go further, and become **a one-stop**
**shop for employers, employees and unemployed Londoners.**
We would like to see this service also undertake promotional activity (under
the London brand), to **raise awareness about the opportunities for training**
and the advantages it can bring – as well as providing guidance on how to
overcome other barriers to employment and training.64
The Government is currently working on its plans for a nationwide adult career
service; we believe that London (and perhaps other large cities), should be
able to use the framework and resources of any national service but retain a
London-specific branding to ensure consistency.
## Promoting The 2011 Skills Olympics
London fought off bids from Sweden and Australia to win the right to host the
2011 Skills Olympics. We should be proud to be hosting this important event.
This is a fantastic opportunity to promote skills training to Londoners, and to
raise the profile of vocational education. However, there has been little
exploitation of the opportunities presented by the 2011 WorldSkills Olympics.
61 London Skills & Employment Board, *Skills and Employment in London: Proposals for the London Skills and*
*Employment Board’s Strategy*, October 2007, Chapter 3, p19
62 Ibid.
63 London Skills & Employment Board, *The London Approach*, March 2008, p7
64 For many a skills shortage is only one barrier to employment, others include health or disability problems, a lack of
access to childcare etc. Particularly for the long-term unemployed we will need to employ a holistic to help get
Londoners back into work, or to encourage Londoners to participate in additional training activities.
Although we hear rather more about the chance to provide skills training for
jobs in the 2012 Olympics, this truth is that the opportunity seems to be under-
utilised. Currently there are only 63 apprentices working on the Olympic
Park.65 This is a ridiculous waste of an opportunity to encourage
apprenticeships, and as Mayor, Boris Johnson would use his position on the
Olympic Board to address this.
**We are committed to taking advantage of all the skills training
opportunities presented by the 2012 Olympics and the WorldSkills
Olympics.**
65 *Hansard*, 3 March 2008: 2211W
## Protecting Our Local Environment
A Cleaner Greener London
Boris Johnson
## Protecting Our Local Environment
It is vital that we cherish our city – its parks, suburbs, streets and town centres – and strive to make it cleaner and greener.
Our local environment has a major impact on our wellbeing and even on our safety. If public spaces suffer from graffiti, fly-tipping and symptoms of neglect, it sends a message to the community that the spaces we share have little value, leading to diminished communities and higher levels of crime.
Areas that have pleasant, clean, open spaces are less likely to suffer from crime. That is why I will make the improvement of our local open spaces a top priority on the environmental agenda.
While the current Labour Mayor and his officials have spent time and taxpayers’ money jetting around the world attending climate change conferences, key aspects of our local environment have been neglected.
I will improve our local environment by providing £6million to make our open spaces cleaner and safer. I will fund the planting of 10,000 street trees to improve the residential streets that need them most, and will amend the London Plan to protect domestic gardens from being lost to new developments.
I will also take action to make London the greenest city in the world. The Mayor’s status affords the opportunity to set a positive example of environmentally-friendly practice to organisations and residents across the capital. I will use the position to procure greener and cleaner goods and services for Londoners, and will work with the boroughs to negotiate the best deals from environmentally-friendly suppliers.
It seems strange that while the current Mayor evangelises about energy efficiency, the lights at City Hall are left to burn all night. I want City Hall and the bodies of the GLA to have a clean carbon conscience under my Mayoralty.
This will be achieved with a mixture of the latest technology and simple common sense: motion sensors instead of night-long lighting; filtered tap water instead of environmentally-damaging bottled water; travelling to UK conferences by train rather than carbon-chugging aeroplane.
Above all I will work to make London a pleasant and safe place to live, by nurturing and protecting the public spaces that bind us all together.
## My Pledges
I will:
1. **Protect And Preserve Open Spaces**
* Use the Mayor’s powers to protect the green belt and protect against development on gardens.
* Invest £6 million in making our open spaces cleaner and safer.
* Invest in 10,000 street trees to improve the local neighbourhoods that need them most.
2. **Make It Easier To Recycle And Reduce Waste**
* Promote innovative new schemes that pay Londoners to recycle.
* Work closely with boroughs to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill, and support a ban on plastic bags.
3. **Make Transport More Sustainable**
* Oppose the third runway at Heathrow and mixed mode operation.
* Promote hybrid buses and get traffic moving more smoothly to reduce congestion and so reduce emissions.
* Make London a genuinely cycle-friendly city to promote modal shift.
4. **Help Tackle Climate Change**
* Work to help cut London’s carbon emissions by 60% from their 1990 levels by 2025, through promoting greater energy efficiency and cutting congestion.
* Work with the boroughs to encourage Londoners to install insulation in return for Council Tax rebates.
* Champion innovation through an annual Mayor’s prize of £20,000 for the best new ideas for low carbon technology from London’s students.
## 1. Protecting And Preserving Open Spaces
I will:
* Protect green belt land and open space from development.
* Amend the London Plan to protect against development on gardens.
* Invest £6 million in making our open spaces safer and cleaner.
* Invest in 10,000 street trees to improve the local neighbourhoods that need them most.
* Work with the boroughs to make London cleaner.
* Encourage every member of staff in the GLA, TfL, MPA, and LFEPA, to do one day a year volunteering for a green charity.
## Protecting The Green Belt
Population projections for London predict significant growth in the next few years.¹ Although a growing population puts pressure on space, it is essential that we maintain the protection of all 35,230 hectares of London’s green belt land² as well as those areas defined as Metropolitan Open Land.³
We are committed to ensuring that no development takes place on green belt and Metropolitan Open Land and will use the Mayor's planning powers to refuse any applications to build on them.
## Ending The Garden Grab
In addition to defending London's green belt and open space, we will protect London's gardens. Private gardens comprise more than a third of London’s green space, and play a vital role in enhancing Londoners’ quality of life.
The Government requires that 60% of all new homes must be built on brownfield land. Gardens are classified as brownfield and have no specific protection in Ken
---
¹ The GLA’s recent figures for London predict a rise from 7.5 million in 2006 to between at least 8.3 million by 2026, GLA 2006 Round Demographic Projections, December 2006, page 1.
² See MQT question 446/2008.
³ Metropolitan Open Land is a designation unique to London, first established in the Greater London Development Plan (1976), for land ‘within the built-up area’ which needs ‘to be safeguarded just as much as the Green Belt’. Examples include parks, woodlands, cemeteries and other open spaces.
Livingstone’s London Plan. Because of these pressures, local authorities are increasingly allowing development on private gardens.
Consequently, these gardens are disappearing. In 2006 alone, over a thousand London gardens were used for new build. Gardens are being lost in all boroughs with 10% of planning approvals in Croydon being for development on garden land, 7% in Sutton, and between 5-7% in Bromley, Ealing, Enfield, and Hillingdon.⁴
We need to take action now to safeguard London’s green spaces. Losing gardens affects all Londoners. Gardens and other green spaces help cool London by counteracting the ‘heat island effect’ created by substances such as concrete and tarmac which absorb and retain heat and then radiate it, making city centres several degrees hotter than surrounding countryside.⁵
London’s private gardens also play a crucial role in absorbing rainwater, and so reducing the possibility of flooding, as well as providing the habitat for many wild plants and animals, both rare and common.
We will address the problem by writing into the London Plan a presumption against residential development on domestic gardens, and will incorporate this amendment as a matter of urgency. It is imperative that the new housing needed in the capital is not built at the expense of existing open spaces.
## Priority Parks Programme
We believe that the Mayor should work with the boroughs to ensure that every Londoner can enjoy to the full the many benefits that green spaces provide. To this end, we will initiate a democratically guided programme with a minimum of £6 million funding to revive rundown parks and gardens in London.
London's green spaces provide many environmental benefits as well as playing a crucial social role for millions of Londoners in offering a place to relax and exercise. Numerous studies have shown the clear health benefits of spending time in green spaces. A walk in the park reduces muscle tension, blood pressure and stress, as well as promoting happiness.⁶
But while many of London’s parks, commons, heaths and public gardens are extremely attractive and welcoming, and are enjoyed throughout the year by millions of Londoners, this is not universally the case. In all corners of London there are green spaces that, for a variety of reasons, are not fulfilling their potential.
⁴ London Assembly Environment Committee, Garden Grabbing Update, 11 October 2007, page 2.
⁵ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/microclimates.html
⁶ Living for the City, Policy Exchange, 2006.
Some green spaces are not used much by the local community because many people do not feel comfortable or safe there. Studies have shown that 39% of women feel unsafe in London’s parks.7
Renovating our open spaces could reduce the fear of crime. Official Home Office guidance on crime reduction states that: “Improving the physical environment can have a big impact on crime and fear of crime.”8
Numerous reports have linked the quality of park facilities with crime and anti-social behaviour.9 Simple measures like lower walls, more entrances, increased lighting and litter bins can help design out crime.
Although most of the boroughs (who run the parks) are doing a good job in difficult circumstances, the funding they receive from central Government is limited. Therefore, they do not always have as much money as they need for the upkeep of all their parks and gardens.
The Priority Parks Programme aims to address this. It will use some of the funding released by ending the current Labour Mayor’s publication ‘The Londoner’, which has a budget of £2.5 million next year.10
By cancelling ‘The Londoner’ we can invest £6 million over our first term to make green spaces safer and cleaner.11 We are confident that the Priority Parks Programme will attract significant amounts of additional match funding from the public and private sectors, so magnifying the impact of our investment.
We will work with environmental charities to produce a list of the green spaces that would most gain from the application of additional resources.
We will democratise the programme by empowering Londoners to say where the money should be spent. By voting on the internet they will guarantee that funds are directed to those areas on the list where they are most needed.
By improving these green spaces we will also help those that live nearby to feel more of a connection to their local park and thereby enhance its value as a community asset.
7 ‘Safer Parks Pilot’ Mayor’s Report to the London Assembly, April 2004.
8 http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/toolkits/fc0208.htm
9 “Decent Parks? Decent Behaviour? The Link Between Parks and User Behaviour”, The Commission For Architecture and the Built Environment.
10 MQT 78/2008.
11 We will invest £1.5 million per year, in improving 2 or 3 parks each year.
## Street Trees
The trees of London’s leafiest areas give the capital its identity as one of the world’s greenest cities, with an estimated 20% of London’s land area being under the canopy of individual trees.12 But these trees are not distributed equally around the capital. Many London streets, particularly in deprived areas, have no street trees at all.
We believe that as many areas as possible should enjoy the many advantages that street trees bring. So we will plant 10,000 street trees by the end of our first term.
Trees improve the street environment in which Londoners live and work. They offer health benefits because they provide shade, cooling and moisture, and their leaves trap some elements of road pollution, benefiting asthmatics. A tree-lined street has only 10-15% of the dust of a street without trees, as well as being 6-10°C cooler.13
They improve the local environment by absorbing some traffic noise, as well as providing habitats for local wildlife.14 Street trees also mitigate the effects of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, cooling streets that are suffering from the ‘heat island’ effect, and by soaking up rainwater from flash floods.
Urban trees can confer economic benefits as well. As any estate agent will confirm, the presence of trees in an urban area correlates with higher property values, perhaps as much as 5 to 15 % higher.15
However, in the last few years a third of boroughs have seen a decline in the number of street trees.16
There has been little commitment of resources from the Mayor to reverse this trend. Over the last four years he has provided no funding for Trees for Cities (TfC), the major tree charity operating in London. We are committed to reversing this short-sighted decision.
## New Street Trees
We propose to work in partnership with charities like TfC to launch a major effort to bring street trees to those areas of London that need them most. Rather than dictate from City Hall where these trees should be planted, it is intended that these charities
12 Chainsaw Massacre: A review of London’s street trees, May 2007.
13 Living for the City, Policy Exchange, 2006.
14 Connecting Londoners with Trees and Woodlands: A Tree and Woodland Framework for London, GLA, March 2005.
15 A Risk Limitation Strategy for Tree Root Claims, London Tree Officers Association, May 2007.
16 Chainsaw Massacre: A review of London’s street trees, May 2007.
would compile a list of the 40 areas in London that would most benefit from new
street trees.
On average we will plant 250 trees in each area, and all 40 areas will have trees
planted by the end of the four-year Mayoral term. Londoners will be able to vote on
the GLA website to determine the order in which areas are planted.
We will commit £1million funding for street trees per year, to be funded from the
cancellation of Ken Livingstone's promotional publication ‘The Londoner’.
With a major injection of funds and high profile support from the Mayor, it is
anticipated that there is significant potential for tree-planting partnerships with
companies and local authorities. TfC have previously secured significant amounts of
match funding for tree planting projects and estimate that each annual grant of £1
million for tree planting would generate match funding of £500,000 from the private
and public sectors.
£1.5 million a year for four years is a total of £6 million which, using an average cost
of £600 per tree,¹⁷ would give a total of 10,000 street trees over a four-year term.¹⁸
While planting 10,000 new street trees will be a hugely positive step forward for
London, it is also important that we protect our existing trees.
We will look into the possibility of rewriting the London Plan to enhance the
protection for street trees against removal. We will also consider including in the
London Plan a requirement for significant developments to plant a certain ratio of
street trees in the vicinity of the development.
### Making London Cleaner
Litter, graffiti and fly-tipping damage London’s environment, encourage more serious
crimes and affect Londoners’ quality of life. Allowing these activities to go
unpunished sends a message that no-one cares about the upkeep of an area –
leading to more crime and diminishing quality of life.
We have to help the boroughs to make our capital cleaner and safer for all
Londoners. MORI’s Annual London Surveys consistently show that more than half
of Londoners do not believe London is a clean city.¹⁹
---
¹⁷ Because of the need to check for pipes and cables before digging up the pavement, a street tree is likely to cost £500-700 to
establish, maintain and water for 3 years – information from Trees for Cities.
¹⁸ It is assumed that local authorities will assume maintenance responsibility for trees after the initial 3-year period.
¹⁹ See http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/annual_survey/2007/als-2007-toplines.pdf, Q11.
The latest figures for London show a 22% annual rise in fly-tipping incidents and a total of nearly 600,000 incidents dealt with by the boroughs in 2006-07, at a total cost of nearly £20 million²⁰ – but there were only 293 prosecutions for fly-tipping in the same period.²¹ We will push for prosecutions for all those caught fly-tipping.
We also want to see information on fly-tipping and graffiti incorporated into New York-style crime maps which will provide the information for Londoners to hold their local councils to account, and will enable councils to target areas where this frequently occurs.
We will also make the reporting of environmental crimes like fly-tipping and graffiti easier for Londoners. We will look into the possibility of establishing a London-wide non-emergency phone line to make reporting offences of all kinds far easier, whilst also freeing up the 999 number for emergencies.
This spring three London boroughs are piloting the ‘101’ non-emergency number;²² if the trials prove successful, we will look at the options for rolling it out across the capital.
## Supporting Green Volunteering
Each year thousands of Londoners give up their valuable free time to make our green spaces better for the benefit of everyone.
Organisations such as the London Wildlife Trust, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), and Trees for Cities all do a marvellous job and depend on people donating their time. In addition to committing to working closely with these and other bodies to protect and enhance London's environment, we will encourage more Londoners to get involved in volunteering.
It is only right that City Hall should lead by example so we will strongly encourage every member of the GLA and subsidiary bodies to do one day's volunteering work every year and will grant them the time off work to do so.
In addition, our Payback London scheme will also see young Londoners getting involved in improving London’s green spaces by removing graffiti, picking up litter, painting railings etc.
## 2. Making It Easier To Recycle And Reduce Waste
I will:
* Make recycling easier and more convenient through innovative approaches, such as paying Londoners to recycle.
* Work with the boroughs to improve recycling rates and reduce the amount of London’s waste that is sent to landfill.
* Support a ban on plastic bags in London.
### Recycling
Between 1995/96 and 2005/06 household waste per person in the UK increased by 14%, with each person generating just over half a tonne on average per year.23
Not only does London have the worst household recycling rate in the country,24 but the most recent progress report on the Mayor’s waste strategy admits that the gap between London and the second-worst region (the North East) is growing.25 We are being left behind.
Recycling is something that every Londoner can do to improve our environment every day. People instinctively want to be green, but often don’t know how. We need to make recycling a hassle-free part of Londoners’ lives. We are determined to make that happen, and will work with local councils to make recycling easier and more convenient.
We will champion new and innovative schemes to improve recycling rates. For example, a successful new approach in the USA is to pay people to recycle. A company called RecycleBank has expanded extremely rapidly in the last 3 years and now works in more than 200 American cities and towns. Their ground-breaking approach has been highly successful, increasing the amount of waste recycled per household by an average of more than 200%.26
RecycleBank give every household in an area a bin, or a box for more dense housing such as blocks of flats. The residents put all their recyclable waste in the
23 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf04.htm
24 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf07.htm
25 http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/docs/waste_strat_progress_oct07.pdf, page19.
26 The average household waste recycled increases from 113kg to 364-454kg – data from RecycleBank.
bin, which is weighed when it is collected. The amount of waste recycled is recorded
and credited to the household’s account.
The weight of material recycled by each household determines how many
RecycleBank dollars they earn. These dollars, in the form of vouchers, can be spent
at a wide variety of national and local shops and businesses such as supermarkets,
chemists, restaurants and hotels. There are currently more than 300 companies
signed up with RecycleBank in the United States including Starbucks, IKEA and
Timberland.
Where RecycleBank operates in America, this approach has led to substantial
increases in household recycling rates, so reducing the amount of waste that is sent
to landfill.
Landfill tax was introduced in 1996 by the last Conservative Government and was
the UK’s first environmental tax. At the moment local authorities must pay £24 per
tonne of household waste landfilled, but this will increase to £48 per tonne in the next
three years.
Reducing the quantity of waste sent to landfill cuts the cost of waste disposal for the
local authority and so saves them money. The money saved is split between the
local authority and RecycleBank.
RecycleBank’s approach is successful because it rewards people for doing the right
thing and recycling, rather than taxing them for producing rubbish as the Labour
Government wants to do.
We are pleased that Conservative local authorities such as Windsor and
Maidenhead, and Westminster, will be talking to Recyclebank to consider how
paying the public to recycle might be implemented in the UK. If, as we hope, the
scheme works as well in the UK as it does in the US, we will promote it to all London
boroughs so that as many Londoners as possible can benefit from this new
approach.
## Strategic Direction
Ken Livingstone has long maintained that a single waste authority is necessary for
London, but he failed to persuade the Labour Government to give him the powers he
wanted.27 Instead it created a new London Waste and Recycling Board (LWRB) and
has given it a £60 million budget for 2008-2011.28
27 Scoping paper on proposal for a London single waste authority and enhanced Mayoral waste planning powers, September
2005.
28 Created by section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007.
Unfortunately the Labour Mayor has renounced his option to be involved with the LWRB and responsibility for it has passed instead to London Councils.29 Given that new secondary legislation will be required to allow the Mayor to chair the LWRB, the next Mayor will not be able to influence the board directly this year. However, we will lobby the Government to introduce such legislation as soon as possible.
And, unlike the Labour Mayor, we look forward to working with the LWRB to make the right investment decisions for the future of waste management in London.
Ken Livingstone has also reallocated the funding he was originally going to contribute to the LWRB. Instead he has announced that this money will be spent on new infrastructure to manage commercial and industrial waste.30
We do not believe that it is sensible to have two separate funds, each providing for the development of waste management and recycling facilities in London, as this runs the risk of duplication of effort and facilities.
It is crucial that these funding streams are coordinated so that we can, for example, minimise waste transport movements which currently account for 8-10% of freight traffic movements in London.31 We will contribute the £24 million that Ken Livingstone has planned to spend separately over the next four years to LWRB’s overall funding pot.
London has more than half of all the restaurants in the country.32 Therefore we would expect some of this funding to focus on enabling London to deal with food and other organic waste more effectively. Too much of this is currently sent to landfill and so emits methane, a greenhouse gas even more potent than carbon dioxide.
## Reducing Waste
We must do everything possible to reduce the amount of waste that we produce. We will expect all bodies in the GLA family to reduce the amount of waste they generate, for instance by working with their suppliers to reduce packaging volume.
As a first step we will be banning the supply of bottled water immediately in City Hall, to be replaced by the use of filtered tap water. Public bodies should not be spending taxpayers’ money on bottled water which is environmentally unsustainable as well as being hugely expensive.
29 http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/article.php?slug=Mayor-Rejects-Waste-Forum&article_id=689
30 http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.2546
31 Making waste work in London: The Mayor’s Draft Business Waste Management Strategy, GLA, 2008.
32 Ibid.
And we are committed to reducing the amount of waste generated by London
collectively. This is why we have for some time been lobbying for a ban on single-
use plastic bags.33 The Labour Government has finally started to address this issue,
but has chosen to take an extremely cautious approach when firm action is called
for. We will continue to push for stronger measures.
We also strongly approve of David Cameron’s recent announcement that an
incoming Conservative Government will negotiate a voluntary agreement with
producers across the whole waste stream to cut back on the production of waste and
to improve its disposal.
We will promote greater levels of re-use to cut down on usable items entering the
waste stream, for example by championing and supporting innovative schemes like
Freecycle. Freecycle is a non-profit worldwide network of local groups that match
people who have things they want to get rid of, with people who can use them. There
are currently local Freecycle groups in 28 London boroughs.
33 Bin those plastic bags, Daily Telegraph, 15/11/07.
3. Making Transport More Sustainable
I will:
(cid:120) Get London’s traffic flowing better, so reducing traffic emissions.
(cid:120) Lobby the Government to stop the expansion of Heathrow.
(cid:120) Increase the number of hybrid buses when feasible.
(cid:120) Make London a genuinely cycle-friendly city by introducing a central
London cycle hire scheme and increasing the number of cycle parks.
(cid:120) Use my influence as Chair of the MPA to ensure the police take cycle
theft more seriously.
Tackling Emissions Through Reduced Congestion
Ken Livingstone’s current policies are not reducing emissions. Air quality in central
London is in decline. According to the London Air Quality Network, at their site on
Shaftesbury Avenue, emissions of harmful Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide
are both higher today than before congestion charging was introduced.34
Getting traffic moving more smoothly reduces emissions. Study after study has
shown that cars sitting at traffic lights or stuck in congestion emit more CO than
2
free-flowing traffic.35 Our approach recognises the scientific evidence, and focuses
on reducing emissions by decreasing congestion.
The Congestion Charge was a bold idea but it is no longer proving an effective
means to tackle congestion. Using TfL’s official measurement, congestion is now
above pre-charging levels.36
(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
34 The latest annual mean of PM10 is 43, and for Nitrogen Dioxide it is 80. In 2002 it was 34 and 68 respectively.
http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?statyear=2002&mapview=all®ion=0&site=CD3&postcode=&la_id=&
objective=All
35 For example in a study from 2007 entitled ‘Get with the Flow ‘, Swiss Scientists Helbing and Lammer (from the Institute of
Transport and Economics at The University of Dresden) stated categorically that better traffic flow led to decreased CO
2
emissions. They suggested a fully intuitive traffic control system that uses behavioural algorithms to create better traffic
flows. A recent study in Romania conducted by Rutgers University in New Jersey suggested that optimizing traffic flow by
making it motorist dependent – rather than slowing motorists down with traffic lights – reduced emissions by around 6.5%.
The environmental impact of congested traffic is explored in ‘Economics of Traffic Congestion in Dublin’ Clinch and Kelly
2004.
36TfL Surface Advisory Panel February 2008, Managing Director’s Report, page 37.
13(cid:3)
(cid:3)
Current traffic policies, like re-phasing traffic lights to stay on red for longer, have undermined the original purpose of congestion charging – to get traffic moving. Last year, TfL admitted that congestion increased by 15% in central London.37
Therefore, as a first step, we will re-phase traffic lights so that they operate to keep traffic moving smoothly. This will benefit the buses, making the service more reliable – a service that has suffered as a result of Ken Livingstone’s traffic management policies38 – and will help encourage modal shift to public transport.
We will never achieve sustained modal shift in the long term unless we improve the reliability of public transport – it is the key to long term carbon reduction.
### A Misplaced Tax
Ken Livingstone plans to charge large family vehicles £25 a day to enter London, while allowing others in for free. This is gesture politics. It will not improve congestion or emissions.
Ken Livingstone’s own analysis anticipates that “there would be no air quality related health impacts associated with the introduction of emissions-related congestion charging”, and Transport for London’s figures show that the reduction in CO2 will be negligible.39 A report by TfL says that emissions of CO2 from cars would be reduced by as little as 0.3%, and in the best case scenario a maximum of 2%.40
But by allowing more vehicles in for free, this policy will contribute to increased congestion. There is evidence to suggest that allowing smaller vehicles in for free will cause up to 10,000 extra vehicles per day to enter central London.41
Increased congestion results in increased emissions, so the £25 charge could actually be counter-productive for the environment.42 This charge will do nothing for London’s air quality and may well lead to increased carbon emissions.
We will scrap Ken Livingstone’s proposed new charge because it is environmentally unsound. Instead we will focus on tackling emissions through tackling congestion.
37 TfL Congestion Charging Impacts Monitoring 5th Annual Report, 2007.
38 The latest TfL congestion charging report states; “The overall reduction in bus speeds since 2003 has been 11% within the central zone, 7% on the Inner Ring Road and 8% on radial routes close to the central London charging zone. Areas further away from central London have showed a decrease of the order of 2% over this period.” Transport for London, *Congestion Charging Impacts Monitoring, 5th Annual Report*, July 2007, page 59.
39 *Combined Impact Assessment of Proposed Emissions Related Congestion Charging*, TfL, August 2007, page 90.
40 Measured against TfL’s baseline. ‘*Combined Impact Assessment of Proposed Emissions Related Congestion Charging*’ August 2007.
41 ‘*Green Tax or White Elephant*’ CEBR Report, October 2007.
42 ‘*Economics of Traffic Congestion in Dublin*’ Clinch and Kelly 2004.
## Roadworks
A major obstacle to keeping traffic moving, in particular buses, is the delays caused by roadworks, especially those which run over their allotted time, or are undertaken at short notice. There is a particular problem with roadworks undertaken by utility companies.
TfL’s own figures show that over the last two years, the duration of roadworks by utility companies has almost doubled.43
Despite the Labour Mayor stating in 2002 that he wanted “powers to be introduced as soon as possible to bring the utility companies into line,”44 he has failed to persuade the Government to give him those powers.
We will campaign for powers to fine utility companies who cause unnecessary delays, and better coordinate roadworks between the companies, the boroughs and TfL.
## Low Emission Zone (LEZ)
The Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) came into force on 4 February and penalises large, highly polluting vehicles that do not comply with certain environmental standards, as laid down in EU law. The zone covers the entirety of Greater London (but would not include the M25).
We are passionately committed to improving London’s air quality. We must act to deal with the estimated 1000 deaths per year caused by air pollution. The ‘polluter pays’ principle that lies behind the Low Emission Zone is fair. We believe the LEZ is a step in the right direction.
## Fighting Heathrow Expansion
We are opposed to the expansion of Heathrow – both a third runway and the introduction of mixed mode operations – because the purported economic benefits do not come close to balancing the environmental and other costs that would be caused.
The fifth terminal was supposed to be an end to expansion at Heathrow. It was announced with a proviso that flights would be capped at 480,000 annually.45 Now
43 TfL figures accompanying a press release by the Mayor on 13th February 2007. The figures aggregate the total time taken to complete roadworks over the year 2005/06.
44 GLA Press Release, 12/12/02.
45 Hansard, 20 November 2001, column 178.
BAA want to raise this to more than 700,000 per year.⁴⁶ The consultation does not even attempt to explain how public transport will be upgraded to handle the additional 40 million passengers using Heathrow,⁴⁷ despite this being classified as one of the key criteria for expansion in the 2003 Aviation White Paper.⁴⁸
## Economics
We are committed to ensuring that London retains its position as the motor of the UK economy and the leading financial centre of the world. But there are questions about the reliability of the cost and benefit figures cited in the consultation. We believe there should be a new, genuinely independent study of the economic case for expansion. Business is not convinced – surveys have shown that 78% of London firms are against the expansion of Heathrow,⁴⁹ and that only 1% of members of the Institute of Directors think airport expansion is a priority.⁵⁰
## Noise Pollution
The Labour Government’s consultation uses 57 decibels as the threshold at which there is ‘onset of significant community annoyance’, despite the Government’s own more recent research showing this is now lower (52 decibels).⁵¹ Only by this sleight of hand can the Government meet its own noise test. It is also extraordinary that the consultation document does not make any assessment of the impact of moving to all-day flights rather than half-day flights, as happens currently.
## Air Quality
At the moment air quality in Heathrow is already breaking what will be mandatory EU pollution limits in 2010.⁵² So the Government's belief that it can greatly expand the number of air journeys and still meet these binding targets relies on some truly heroic assumptions about likely reductions in road vehicle emissions and improved environmental performance of aircraft over the next decade. Many of the new cleaner aeroplane models the Government anticipates have not even reached the drawing board stage.
Another price to pay for the planned expansion of Heathrow will be the destruction of the entire village of Sipson – more than 700 properties – as well as listed buildings in Harmondsworth, to say nothing of the loss of more than 250 hectares of green belt land.
⁴⁶ Adding capacity at Heathrow airport - Public consultation, November 2007, page 8.
⁴⁷ Adding capacity at Heathrow airport - Public consultation, November 2007, table 5.
⁴⁸ *The Future of Air Transport*, White Paper, December 2003, para 11.62.
⁴⁹ London Chamber of Commerce Survey 2006.
⁵⁰ Transport Matters Survey by the IOD, January 2007.
⁵¹ Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE) study, November 2007.
⁵² Adding capacity at Heathrow airport - Public consultation, November 2007, para 3.51.
Given all these impacts, the case for expansion has to be rock solid, which it is
simply not. Consequently, we will lobby the Government long and hard to withdraw
its plans for more capacity at Heathrow.
## UK Flights
The Labour Mayor has been explicit about his belief that aviation is the most
inexcusable element of carbon emissions and that short haul flights should be
avoided wherever possible.
This position is rather undermined by the fact that the Mayor’s officials at the GLA,
TfL and other bodies have so far travelled on at least 307 internal UK flights during
his second term.53
Ken Livingstone has done little to stop these unnecessary flights. Only when the
Mayoral election was imminent did he finally announce a change to policy for the
GLA group by banning internal flights.54 We support this belated policy change.
## More Hybrid Buses
It is crucial that London's bus fleet is converted to less carbon-intensive fuels as
soon as is practicable. We will closely monitor how the technology in this area
develops, with a view to deploying more hybrid buses in London when it is possible.
We will push the other C40 cities to maximise our collective purchasing power when
the price is right.
## The Cycle Strategy
An important part of tackling congestion is getting more Londoners walking and
cycling. Although some progress has been made, there is still much to do. We are
determined to see many more Londoners cycling, so we will make it safer and more
convenient to cycle.
London should be a genuinely cycle-friendly city. We are serious about making
changes to achieve this. Cycling produces major benefits in terms of public health,
as well as freeing up capacity on other types of public transport.
Real change will come from real leadership, from a Mayor who understands what it
is like to cycle in London.
53 GLA question 2516/2007.
54 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=16215
## Velib-Style Bike Hire Scheme
We want to allow as many Londoners as possible to experience the many personal and civic benefits of cycling.
Getting around town quickly and cheaply will become much easier when London has a bicycle hire scheme. We will broker a deal with a private company to bring thousands of bikes to the capital at no cost to the taxpayer.
Similar schemes in Paris, Copenhagen, Barcelona and Brussels have all proved hugely successful. As the scheme in Paris has demonstrated, commercial firms are happy to shoulder the costs of this type of scheme.
## Combating Cycle Crime
The latest figures at TfL show that cycle thefts are on the up.⁵⁵ There were 80,000 bicycles stolen in the capital last year,⁵⁶ and a bike is stolen every 71 seconds in England.⁵⁷
Once a bicycle has been stolen, it is highly unlikely to be recovered. TfL estimate that fewer than 5% of stolen cycles are returned to their owners.⁵⁸ Therefore, as well as being an inconvenience, stolen bikes also represent a significant cost to London’s cyclists.
Building confidence in commuting by bike is a key aim of reducing cycle crime. Once an individual has their bike stolen, they are far less likely to cycle in future. Studies have suggested that as many as 24% of cyclists who experience bicycle theft stop cycling altogether, and 66% cycle less often.⁵⁹
One means of dealing with cycle theft is to provide more secure cycle parking. For example, Finsbury Park operates a staffed and covered cycle park, consisting of 125 automated lockable cycle racks operated by a smart card system, which opened in March 2006. It boasts 24-hour access to smart card holders, with cycles being charged 50p for 24-hour parking.⁶⁰
We can also learn a lot from the experience of New York. There, the Department of Transportation (DoT) operates a City Racks programme. This innovative scheme
⁵⁵ TfL, Avoiding Theft, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/988.aspx
⁵⁶ TfL, Avoiding Theft, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/988.aspx
⁵⁷ Slam the breaks on cycle theft, Halifax General Insurance, 12 April 2006.
⁵⁸ TfL, Avoiding Theft, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/988.aspx
⁵⁹ St Martin’s Tackles Cycle Theft, Design Week 2007, http://www.designweek.co.uk/Articles/133911/St+Martins+tackles+cycle+theft.html. From research conducted by Gamman, Thorpe, Willcocks, 2004, ‘BikeOff/The Design out Crime Research Centre, University of Arts, London.’
⁶⁰ http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/978.aspx
provides free pavement bicycle parking racks throughout New York City to
encourage cycling for commuting, short trips and errands. So far almost 3,000 cycle
racks have been installed.⁶¹
We will follow the New York example and provide funding for more cycle parks for
London. We would divert £2 million from the total £5 million saved from TfL
consultancy fees towards increasing the provision of cycle parking around the city.⁶²
This could, for example, pay for procuring and installing 13,000 Sheffield stands
(enough parking for 26,000 bicycles), or 1,250 secure cycle cages (with parking for
15,000 bicycles).⁶³
Additionally we will prioritise cycling in the London Plan. While car parking is given its
own Policy Guidance in the London Plan, secure cycle parking is included only as
part of the wider strategy on cycling. Secure cycle parking must become a priority
within the London Plan, so that secure cycle parking is a standard feature of new
developments. It is clear we need a fresh approach, which is why for the first time
cycling will have its own Policy Guidance in our amended London Plan, putting it on
an equal status to secure car parking.
By doing this, we will send a strong signal that the developments of the future must
have secure cycling parking as standard.
⁶¹ New York City Biking, http://www.bikeroute.com/NBGBikingCities/NewYorkCity/NYCBiking.php
⁶² See ‘Getting Londoners Moving’, Boris Johnson.
⁶³ According to the Department of Transport the cost of procuring and installing a Sheffield Stand is around £135. We have
based our calculations on a cost of £150. Similarly the DoT estimate that the cost of a cycle cage with a key or combination lock
system will be around £1,500 for 12 bikes, we have used £1,600 in our calculation. Department for Transport, *Cycling to Work*,
Traffic Advisory Leaflet, page 6.
## 4. **Tackling Climate Change**
I will:
* Work to help cut London’s carbon emissions by 60% from their 1990 levels by 2025, including collaborating with the C40 group of cities to develop strategies to tackle climate change.
* Set a positive example to the corporate sector by upgrading the energy efficiency of the GLA group buildings, and pressing the Government to meet its promises to improve the energy efficiency of its buildings in London.
* Promote the development of electricity micro-generation in London and the greater use of on-site renewable energy.
* Support the introduction of a Waste Heat Levy and the greater use of Combined Heat and Power in London to improve the efficiency of power generation.
* Use all the powers at my disposal to push the use of renewable energy sources in London.
* Offer a Mayor’s prize for new research into low carbon technology, to promote innovation.
London needs to set an example to the world as a sustainable, green city. It is clear that climate change is one of the biggest threats we face, and we must all do that we can to tackle it. This is why we will emphasise the importance of keeping environmental issues at the forefront of decision making and ensuring an environmentally coherent approach across all areas of policy.
We support the target to reduce London’s CO₂ emissions by 60% from their 1990 levels by 2025. There is no denying that this is a challenging target but, with the right leadership at municipal and national level, it is achievable.
We will also continue to collaborate with the C40 group of international cities. By working together and sharing best practice we can make great strides in combating climate change. It is vital that efforts are made to use the enormous combined purchasing power of the group to lower the cost of cutting-edge green technology.
## Key Sources Of Emissions
London emitted 44 million tonnes of carbon in 2006, excluding aviation emissions.
Almost three quarters of these emissions are from buildings – 33% from the
commercial and public sector and 38% from domestic properties.64 It is therefore
crucial to take steps to improve energy efficiency, and so reduce emissions, from
these two sources.
## Domestic Sector Energy Efficiency
Whilst we welcome the new Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) 1 to 6 star system
to indicate overall sustainability performance of a home for public housing, the
National Housing Federation estimates that 92% of public sector developments in
2007/8 will be at or above Level 3, in other words ‘very good’ or better on the eco
homes assessment criteria.65 The challenge is private builds, where the CSH
remains voluntary. We will clarify the Housing Strategy to call for all new homes in
London to meet Level 3 of the Code by 2010, and Level 6 by 2016.
But new builds only account for 1% of the total housing stock.66 More than half of
London’s domestic carbon emissions are caused by heating our homes, so it is
crucial that we improve the energy efficiency performance of London’s existing
domestic properties.67
The Mayor's principal policy for improving the energy efficiency of domestic
properties has been a heavily-publicised money back scheme, funded in conjunction
with British Gas. With this scheme, the household receives a postal order after they
have ordered insulation. The money offered depends on whether the insulation is
self-installed (£50) or professionally fitted (£100).
But the most recent figures show that just 3,098 Londoners have signed up to the
Mayor’s scheme to insulate their homes (the target was 30,000 homes by 1 June
2007).68 This is despite more than £2.2 million spent on marketing and publicity –
with just £300,000 spent on actually insulating properties.69 We are certain that this
64 The Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan, February 2007, page xii.
65 The future of the Code for Sustainable Homes – Making a rating mandatory, DCLG 23 July 2007. One star indicates entry
level, with standards set above the level of the Buildings regulations, the minimum statutory building standards. Six stars is the
highest level, deemed to be exemplar at current standards.
66 There are 3.1 million dwellings in London [from the Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan] and the annual target for new
homes in London is 30,500 [The London Plan].
67 Action Today to Protect Tomorrow: The Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan, February 2007.
68 “Mayor Answers to London”, question 2506/2007. Available at: http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/question.do?id=20222; “Mayor
and British Gas offer £100 and cut-price insulation to cut CO₂ in the home”, 27 Mar 2007 (Notes to Editors, point 4). Available
at: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11351; “Mayor Answers to London”, question 3091/2007.
Available at: http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/question.do?id=20978
69 Mayor’s Decision List 8 February 2007 – 7 March 2007, pp18-19. Available at:
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assemmtgs/2007/mqtmar21/item04a.pdf; Mayor’s Decision List 8 March 2007 – 8 April
2007, pp15-16. Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assemmtgs/2007/mqtmay23/item03b.pdf; Mayor’s Decision
List 1-28 November 2007, pp4-5. Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assemmtgs/2007/mqtdec12/item04a.pdf
performance can be bettered and we will promote an alternative scheme that uses Council Tax rebates to persuade owner occupiers to install insulation.
75 local authorities are currently working with British Gas to offer one-off Council Tax rebates to residents who install home insulation. The schemes have proved very popular, with research by one of the participating councils showing that 78% of customers would not have installed insulation if the Council Tax rebate was not on offer.70
We will encourage London boroughs to work with energy companies to offer Council Tax rebate schemes to their residents, in order to encourage them to install insulation. Because local authorities have long-established communication channels they can advertise the scheme to owner-occupiers in a much cheaper and more efficient way than Ken Livingstone’s advertising blitz.
The Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) obliges energy suppliers to work to improve domestic energy efficiency, so we are confident that energy companies supplying Londoners will work with boroughs to fund this scheme. Individual boroughs may of course wish to increase the size of the rebate to seek to boost the level of take-up. We will also redirect to this scheme whatever funding the GLA has allocated for yet more advertising of the Mayor’s current scheme.
## GLA Group Energy Efficiency
We support the recent announcement of a trial contract to reduce the emissions of the GLA group through retrofitting existing buildings.71 This scheme was first announced in May 2007 and is part of the C40/Clinton Foundation initiative.72
It is vital that City Hall takes a positive lead on this issue. Not only is this the right thing to do in energy terms, it sets the proper tone to inspire the rest of London’s public and private sector organisations.
The contract announced by the Labour Mayor covers, at present, only 42 of the GLA group's 893 buildings,73 despite being announced as covering up to 100 buildings.74 It is not clear why the scale of this first stage has been reduced. We would be more ambitious with this programme and seek to accelerate these long overdue works.
70 Data from British Gas.
71 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=15894
72 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11975
73 The Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan, February 2007, page 181.
74 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=13532
## Central Government
There are a large number of public sector buildings in London, many of which are part of central Government. If London is to have any chance of meeting its emissions targets, these buildings will have to increase their energy efficiency.
But although the Government has committed itself repeatedly to procuring public estate buildings that are in the “top quartile” of energy performance,75 they are simply not keeping their promises. Indeed, more than two thirds of Government departments are less energy efficient now than they were in 2000.76
The Labour Government must be held to its promises to improve the efficiency of its estate. We will lobby hard to make the Government's frequently repeated "top quartile" pledge a binding commitment.
Across the UK the public sector is a very big player in the commercial property market, being responsible for a third of non-domestic construction and refurbishment.77 So increasing the efficiency of the Government’s estate will help drive down energy use and CO2 emissions across the whole of the UK office market.
## Leading A Green Energy Revolution
The electricity supply industry is a major producer of carbon dioxide and currently accounts for around 35% of the UK’s carbon emissions.78
If London is to have secure, affordable and sustainable energy in 20 years’ time, we must see a fundamental shift towards micro-generation and decentralised energy. We will strive to ensure that London is a world leader in renewable and new energy technology.
We strongly support Conservative plans to revolutionise the UK electricity sector by enabling every small business, every local school, every local hospital and every household in the country to micro-generate electricity from renewable sources.
Such a system has helped Germany to produce more than 10% of its energy from renewable sources, compared to half that in the UK, and helped create over 250,000 jobs in the wind energy sector alone.79
75 This commitment was first made in *Energy Efficiency: The Government’s Plan for Action*, Defra, 2004.
76 Sustainable Development in Government 2007, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2008.
77 Blueprint for a Green Economy, September 2007, page 82.
78 Compared to 24% from transport, 26% from the commercial sector and 15% from the domestic sector. See Our Energy Challenge: Securing clean, affordable energy for the long-term, (January 2006) DTI, Energy Review, Consultation Document, page 25: www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25079.pdf
79 See Power to the People Green Paper - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=141056
We also want to encourage more on-site renewable energy generation in London. Some borough councils have been setting high standards for on-site energy generation in new developments for several years.
For example, Croydon required a 15% energy efficiency target on new developments in 2007. Merton council were the first borough council to require all new developments (over a certain size and number) to generate a minimum percentage of its energy through on-site renewable technologies, an approach now called ‘the Merton Rule’.
We are delighted that the Planning and Energy Bill currently in the Commons now has cross bench support and we look forward to it becoming law. This Bill will legally protect borough councils that decide to adopt the Merton Rule from judicial review.
## Energy Generation Efficiency
A staggering two thirds of energy used in large, centralised power stations never reaches the consumer – it is lost partly from wires that transmit the electricity large distances across the country, but mostly in the form of waste heat from the power stations themselves.
We therefore strongly support the Conservative policy of introducing a Power Station Waste Heat Levy that will encourage the capture and use of this wasted heat.
One of the best ways of minimising the heat loss from power generation is to use Combined Heat and Power (CHP). CHP generators convert as much as 85% of the input energy into usable electricity and heat which is much more efficient than conventional generators, as well as emitting 20-40% less carbon dioxide. We strongly support increasing the amount of CHP generation in London.
## Renewable Energy Sources
We will champion greater use of renewable energy sources wherever possible in London. For instance we will investigate the possibility of using geothermal heat pumps in the large foundation holes that will have to be dug for the Crossrail project. We will commission an in-depth study of the potential for hydro-electric power generation on the Thames. We will also support the development of the London Array in the Thames Estuary and the greater use of solar power.
And we will lobby the Government to insist that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is used at the proposed new coal-fired power units at Kingsnorth just outside London.
## Mayoral Prize For Low Carbon Technology
Evolving technology will be one of the key ways that London becomes more sustainable in the years to come. And, with London having one the highest concentrations of universities in the world, London’s students are sure to play a big part in developing the technological improvements that will help us all lead greener lives.
To help stimulate research in this area, we will institute a Mayoral Prize for the most promising discovery in the field of new low carbon technology applicable in an urban environment. The prize will be open to all graduate students in London and will be judged by a panel of academics.
The winner will receive £20,000 and their ideas will be promoted by the Mayor.82
82 This funding will come from the cancellation of The Londoner. The annual budget for The Londoner in 2007-08 is £2.8m [MQT 2971/2007]. According to MQT 78/2008 this has been reduced by 10% for 2008-09 because the timing of the election means only 9 editions will be published rather than the usual 10. This gives a budget for 2008-09 of £2.52m. After £1.5m has been spent on improving green spaces and £1m on planting street trees, this leaves £0.02m to fund the mayoral prize.
# Making London Safer
Boris Johnson
## **MAKING LONDON SAFER**
We are lucky to live in the greatest city on earth. But after ten years of a
Labour government, and eight years of a Labour Mayor, we need to stop
kidding ourselves about crime.
We have a Home Secretary who says she is frightened to walk the streets of
Peckham.
We have had 27 teenagers murdered by other kids in 2007. We have seen a
steady and undisputed rise in robbery, violence against the person and other
violent crimes.[^1]
And we all know that we are suffering from an epidemic of unreported crime.
Bitter experience has taught us that too often the police do not have the time
or the resources to deal with our case.
So what can we do?
We could perhaps shrug our shoulders and say that crime, disorder and
incivility are just a part of city life.
We could turn a blind eye to the robberies and the muggings, and hope that
no one we love will be a victim.
We could throw up our hands, in the manner of the current Labour Mayor, and
say that these problems are beyond our control – caused by television and
the glamorising of violence.
We could accept defeat. We could declare that we have run out of ideas.
Or we could say that enough is enough.
The Mayor of London has a statutory and moral duty to lead the fight-back
against crime.
I reject the fatalism and defeatism of the Labour Mayor. I reject the
assumption that we can do nothing.
I believe that by systematically tackling small crimes we can drive out more
serious crime.
I believe that we can change the lives of kids who would otherwise be sucked
into a nightmarish culture of violence and criminality.
[^1] _The figures released by the Mayor’s office on 16 January 2008 show that:_
* Robbery was higher in 2007 than in 1999.
* Violence against the person was higher in 2007 than in 1999 and 2000.
* Violent crime in total was higher in 2007 than in 1999 and 2000.
* Murder was higher in 2007 than in 1999.
As soon as I become Mayor I will take action, and implement the following
measures:
## My Pledges
I will:
### **1. Provide strong leadership**
- By taking responsibility and chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority and using my influence to tear up red tape and needless form-filling, so we can get more police out on the streets.
### **2. Make buses, trains and stations safer**
- By spending less money on press officers and more money on police officers to increase their presence on buses, trains and station platforms.
- By introducing ‘Payback London’, a scheme that will require under 18s who abuse their right to free bus travel to earn it back through community service projects.
### **3. Tackle knife and gun crimes**
- By demanding they are treated as a high priority by the police, and using every strand of Mayoral power to prevent it through funding community groups, sports schemes and handheld weapon scanners.
### **4. Help the ignored victims of sexual violence**
- By providing desperately needed long-term funding for new Rape Crisis Centres to help the ignored victims of sexual violence – a horrendous crime that is on the increase.
### **5. Demand a police service accountable to you**
- By providing local communities with New York-style crime maps which show the true crime levels in every neighbourhood, which can then be used to ensure Borough Commanders are held to account at monthly open public meetings.
## What We Need To Do
It is important for the Mayor to take a public lead, so I will chair the **Metropolitan Police Authority**. I will take personal responsibility. No offence will be too trivial to demand my attention. No challenge will be so big that I shrug my shoulders and pass the buck.
The fundamental problem with policing in London is that there is a lack of strong leadership, and our police force is hamstrung by political targets and excessive form-filling. This has resulted in a city we no longer feel safe in, and extra officers we do not see.
We have seen a massive increase in incivility, and a growing apathy towards – and even tolerance of – the kind of low-level crime that, unchecked, eventually leads to more serious crime.
I believe the solution lies in **taking responsibility** and providing strong leadership to **enable the police to do their jobs**. We need to sweep away the target-driven culture so they can spend more time on the streets. They join the force to catch criminals, not to push paper around a desk. That is what Londoners want too. Yet the time spent by Metropolitan Police officers on the front-line has been steadily falling for years.²
Ken Livingstone may talk about more police, but he is doing nothing to halt the tide of bureaucracy that is keeping them off the streets.
Every time a police officer stops someone in the street, they have to fill in a form which is a foot long, and can take up to 25 minutes each time. This is an indefensible waste of time. I support **scrapping this form**, and I will lobby the government hard to make it happen. I will use my influence as Mayor and chair of the MPA to **reduce the burden of form-filling**.
I also want to look at other measures that reduce this burden, such as using **PCSOs to help reduce the administrative burden**.
We need to spend **less on press officers, and more on police officers**. We need to redirect more resources to frontline policing.
It is also important we have the highest **levels of preparedness and the resources necessary to protect Londoners against terrorism**. I will ensure that we get the funding necessary from government, and that we are always ready.
## Tackling Crime on Buses, Trains and Stations
We need to defeat the kind of low-level crime committed on public transport that makes people’s lives a misery, and often leads to more serious crimes. It is simply **unacceptable** that gangs treat buses as glorified getaway vehicles, and that passengers have to endure being spat at, verbally abused or worse.
I want to launch a trial of live **CCTV on buses**. It would last six months, and cost around £150,000. This will enable the police to see instantly what is happening when a driver makes a ‘code red’ call, and they will be able to respond swiftly.
I believe we need a more visible police presence on buses, trains and at transport hubs such as bus stops and rail platforms. This is why I will release funds that Ken Livingstone has earmarked for MPA advertising and press officers to be spent on approximately **50 extra fully-warranted British Transport Police Officers to patrol the worst stations in outer London.**
I will also release funds that Ken Livingstone has earmarked for Transport for London advertising and press officers to be spent on approximately **440 PCSOs to be added to the existing Safer Transport Teams, doubling their strength.**
I think it’s great that under 18s can travel on our buses for free, and the vast majority do not abuse that right. However, there is a growing minority that do abuse that right; who intimidate other passengers through threatening and anti-social behaviour.
I believe the right to travel for free on buses must be balanced with the **responsibility to behave** with respect for other passengers.
If those responsibilities are ignored, I will take away that right to free travel from those who abuse it and I will expect them to **earn it back** by doing work with existing community payback schemes, like cleaning up graffiti or volunteering in community centres.
Persistent **fare dodgers** are likely to be responsible for more serious crimes. In fact, a recent survey has shown that as many as one in ten offenders caught in the act of committing petty offences such as fare evasion are likely to be responsible for more serious offences.3
I believe the current enforcement regime is weak and ineffective. Too many people get away with not paying, and too much revenue that could be used to reduce fares is lost. It cannot be right that ticket inspectors do not have the basic power to compel someone to provide their name and address.
3 TfL Community Safety Plan 2007/8 p15 and TfL Report ‘Crime and Disorder on Buses’ p20.
I will ask Transport for London and the MPA to investigate giving Revenue Protection Inspectors this power, so **more persistent fare dodgers are caught.**
The phasing out of bendy buses, to which I am committed, will **end open boarding**, and end the era of the ‘free bus’.
## Tackling Knife and Gun Crime
There are far, far too many guns and knives on our streets. It is clear that they are often used in the heat of the moment – so any time they are being carried tragedies are waiting to happen. This is why I believe we have to make it easier for the police to **stop and search**. Current rules designed to protect ethnic minorities are now tragically failing them – it is kids from these backgrounds who are most at risk of being victims.⁴
This is why I will also provide the resources for the police to have more **handheld weapons scanners**, to be deployed at key locations such as major transport hubs and large-scale public events. Use of such scanners make the likelihood of being caught in transit with a knife or gun much more likely, and will deter people from carrying them in the first place.
If we can deter people from carrying them, then there is a much reduced risk of them being used.
It is also important that the police represent the community they serve. I want to see an **increase** in the number of women officers, and in the number of officers from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and I will direct the MPA to investigate how we can increase them.
However, something else has to change.
I want to see kids given the chance to do something worthwhile, something that leads them away from crime in the first place – and there are some fantastic projects throughout London that do just that. But they need more money and support. I will direct the London Development Agency to **fund community groups that provide mentoring schemes and community sports schemes**. Sport, drama, art; these activities can make a major difference.
And as London continues to grow, we must think very carefully about the new communities we create with housing developments. I will assign much more importance to **designing out crime**, and will amend the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing Strategy accordingly. Poorly-lit streets, cramped conditions, inadequate transport connections and even ugliness are the enemies of safety, and all of them help crime to flourish.
⁴ “Of the 27 teenagers murdered in the capital in 2007, only two were white.” BBC Politics Show, 24 January 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7202287.stm
I will never accept defeat, and I believe that by using all the powers available to the Mayor and taking a fresh approach, **we can tackle knife and gun crime in London.**
## Helping the Ignored Victims of Sexual Violence
It is not only children who need support. There is no doubt that rape is under-reported and on the increase in London. There is also no doubt that victims of rape feel ignored, and they **need long-term help and support** to re-build their lives.
It is nothing short of a disgrace that the government has cut the funding for Rape Crisis Centres in London, and I will release funds that Ken Livingstone has earmarked for his own personal press officers to be spent on providing long-term funding for **new Rape Crisis Centres** in London so the victims of this horrendous crime are no longer ignored.
## A Police Service Accountable to You
I want to facilitate **greater communication** between the police and local communities. I will expect **each Borough Commander to hold open public meetings every month.**
To make this a worthwhile and effective exercise, I will provide local neighbourhoods with New York-style **crime mapping** – whereby crime information and other information about local areas is regularly fed into a computer to show hotspots on an electronic map.
This will provide the public with better information to enable them to hold their local police to account. The police **already do this** in many areas, and I will ensure that their information is our information.
I also support neighborhood policing, and will continue to provide the resources for Safer Neighborhood Teams.
## A Fresh Approach
London is the greatest city in the world. It is a magnificently diverse place where 300 languages are spoken by people of all faiths and none. Londoners get on remarkably well. But we have a crime problem, and the next Mayor of London needs to face up to that fact instead of hiding behind political statistics and hiring ever more press officers.
I want London to maintain our position as the world’s number one financial centre. I want us to encourage the brightest and the best to come here. I want pensioners to feel safe to venture from their homes. I want people to believe it is worth reporting crime. I want the knives and guns off our streets.
It just isn’t true that we can’t do more to tackle crime – that is a tired, out-of-date approach. If I am elected Mayor, I will lead from the front and make London a safer place to live.
Boris Johnson
## 1. Providing Strong Leadership
* I will chair the Metropolitan Police Authority.
* I will stand up against excessive form-filling, and support the scrapping of the stop and account form, lobbying the government hard for its removal.
* I will expect PCSOs to take some of the administrative burden from police officers, so more can get out on streets.
## Taking Responsibility
The Mayor of London has the right to Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority – the body set up to scrutinise and support the work of the Metropolitan Police Service.5 Boris Johnson will exercise this right so that there is a direct link between the police and the Mayor, so the Mayor is more accountable for what happens in the police.
Chairing the MPA will enable the Mayor to get directly involved with the day-to-day scrutiny of the police and get more officers on the streets.
Although the Mayor has no operational control over the police, he has considerable influence through setting the budget and will be able to directly set the strategic direction by chairing the MPA. 6
Policing in London has unique arrangements for democratic accountability. Prior to the creation of the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police was held to account by the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament.7
The Greater London Authority Act 1999 created the MPA, a body designed along the lines of the existing police authorities across the country, with some important differences. Some of the members are elected representatives drawn from the London Assembly to reflect the political balance of that body.
5 “The Metropolitan police authority
Chairman and vice chairmen
4 (1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that—
(a) if the Mayor of London is a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, he is to be the chairman;
(b) if not, the Mayor of London is to appoint a chairman from among the members of the Authority.”
Police and Justice Act 2006, “SCHEDULE 2A 4 (1).
6 “The Mayor of London sets the annual budget for five functional bodies, which have become known as the 'GLA Group'. The group comprises the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.” The MPA budget factsheet, http://www.mpa.gov.uk/about/publications/factsheets/mpa-budget.htm
7 http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/policing.jsp
The Home Secretary appoints one member, and the rest are independent members including local magistrates.8
The MPA is the main scrutiny body for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and sets the strategic direction, which means that the police are more accountable to Londoners.
The Police and Justice Act 2006 gave the Mayor the right to Chair the MPA, and Boris Johnson will exercise this right, so that the police are directly accountable to the Mayor and he can personally oversee his programme to get more police on the streets and cut red tape.9
There are two main levers that we can use to deliver our priorities.
The Commissioner is required to submit a local policing plan to the MPA for their consideration. The MPA can amend that plan according to the strategic priorities it wishes to set, and the Commissioner must “have regard” to that plan. The Police and Justice Act 1996 stipulates:
> *“A draft of a policing plan required to be issued by a police authority under this section shall be prepared by the relevant chief officer of police and submitted by him to the authority for it to consider. The authority shall consult the relevant chief officer of police before issuing a policing plan which differs from the draft submitted by him under this subsection.”*10
However, the Commissioner of the Metropolis still retains direct control, as the GLA Act 1999 stipulates:
> *“The Metropolitan Police force shall be under the direction and control of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis appointed under section 9B. In discharging his functions, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall have regard to the local policing plan issued by the Metropolitan Police Authority under section 8.”*11
Therefore, we will draft a new local policing plan, in consultation with the Commissioner, that will have as its priority the pledges in this manifesto, and we will work with whoever is Commissioner to deliver them.
---
8 http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/policing.jsp
9 Police and Justice Act 2006, SCHEDULE 2A, Section 4 (1), http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060048_en.pdf
10 Police and Justice Act 2006, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060048_en.pdf
11 Greater London Authority Act 1999 , http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990029_en_22
## Standing Up Against Form-Filling
The current commissioner himself, Sir Ian Blair, has said that the police need a “bonfire” of bureaucracy.12
Last year the Metropolitan Police stopped 384,115 people.13 After each encounter the officers involved are required to fill in a foot-long form taking, on average, 25 minutes.14 This means that a staggering 160,048 police hours are wasted each year on filling in one type of form. Ending the stop and account form would mean that police could spend an extra 160,048 hours on the beat – the equivalent of adding 78 new officers to the force.15
Therefore, we will actively support calls to scrap this form, and will lobby the government hard to that effect.
We also need to look at stop and search. It is Conservative Party policy to scrap the form-filling that goes with stop and search powers. It is well known that this form-filling is time consuming and keeps police officers off the streets.
Stop and searches should still be recorded by an officer, who will radio in essential details of the search. This will create a taped or transcribed police log at the centre. Thus stop and searches will still be recorded without the extra burden of having to fill in a form at the scene and a further form back at the station.
Should an individual want a copy of the information on the search, they would be entitled to visit the station and request one.
Boris Johnson supports this policy, so we can free up police to spend more time on the beat.
We will make reducing form-filling and bureaucracy a key strategic priority, so that police can do what they do best; protecting Londoners. We must focus on allowing the police to do their jobs, and we must end the culture of target-setting that has destroyed Londoners’ confidence in the police.
We will ensure that more is done to reduce the burden on police officers. Officers should be able to make better use of new technology to report information to the local police station, and PCSOs should take more of the administrative burden; filling out certain forms and allowing PCs to remain out on the beat.
---
12 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/10/nbonfire110.xml.
13 MPA Stop and Account figures, December 2006 – November 2007 http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/how_are_we_doing/corporate/mps_stop_and_search_monitoring_report_november_2007.pdf
14 Sir Ronnie Flanagan, ‘Review of Policing; Interim Report’, Home Office, September 2007 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/police-reform/Review_of_Policing_Interim_1.pdf?view=Binary
15 Ibid. On average an officer works 2057 hours per year.
This requires a Mayor who will prioritise cutting red tape, yet this has not been a priority for Ken Livingstone. The latest local policing plan (the strategy produced by the MPA) and endorsed by the Labour Chair Len Duvall and Sir Ian Blair until 2010 does not include cutting red tape as one of its main strategic priorities.16 This demonstrates that the current leadership is out of touch, and we will seek to amend the plan to include this as a key strategic priority.
Much of the paperwork is, of course, generated by the Labour government. Ten years in power have yielded an avalanche of new laws, new targets and new paperwork. And all the while, the amount of time police officers in London have spent on the frontline has declined year on year.17
The Mayor may not be able to scrap certain forms, or remove certain targets. But we will stand up for Londoners and our police officers and consistently and relentlessly demand that the politically-driven restrictions from Whitehall are removed so our police are free to do their jobs.
Boris Johnson will ask for regular meetings with the Home Secretary to ensure that Whitehall is listening to Londoners’ concerns.
## Strengthening PCSOs
Police Community Support Officers are a valuable part of the Metropolitan Police, and have an important role to play. Yet Londoners are not willing to give them their full support, because they know they are powerless to protect them.
We will work with the Commissioner and the Home Office to investigate what further powers PCSOs in London could have.
We will also work with the Commissioner to ensure that PCSOs take some of the administrative burden from fully-warranted police officers, so that more time can be spent on the beat.
16 ‘Policing London’, Metropolitan Police Authority,
2007 http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/reports/policingplan2007-08.pdf
17 Hansard, cols 90W and 91W, 10 December 2007.
## 2. Making Trains, Buses and Stations Safer
* I will require under 18s who have had their free bus travel withdrawn for anti-social behaviour to earn it back through voluntary and community service.
* I will double the strength of Safer Transport Teams, by releasing funding for approximately 440 extra PCSOs to patrol the buses and 50 more fully-warranted British Transport Police officers to patrol the worst suburban stations.
* I will make buses safer by running a trial of live CCTV.
* I will focus on reducing fare evasion by directing the MPA and TfL to investigate giving Revenue Protection Inspectors more powers.
### Restorative Justice
At present, under-18s can travel on the buses for free in London. This is a great investment and has provided welcome financial relief to parents across London. However, there are still problems with a minority of under-18s who abuse their privilege.
TfL figures show that the incidents of code red calls made by bus drivers in London specifically due to anti-social behaviour increased from 472 cases in August 2005 (the month before free travel was introduced) to 697 cases in October 2006 – the latest available figures. 18
However, Ken Livingstone has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the increase in anti-social behaviour, despite the figures confirming that on average from April 2003 to September 2005, drivers made 432 code red calls per month.19 Following the introduction of free travel for under-16s in September 2005 the average number of code red calls made by drivers per month specifically relating to anti-social behaviour increased to 535.20
Between the start of the scheme in September 2005 and July 2007, only 394 passes have been *permanently* withdrawn from under-18s and 16s, despite the scheme having run for almost two years.21
18 Transport for London, Surface Advisory Panel Papers, Managing Director’s Report, Jan 2007 p16.
19 In February 2007, he told the London Assembly; “There is no increase in anti-social behaviour.”
20 Transport for London, Surface Advisory Panel Papers, Managing Director’s Report, Jan 2007 p.36.
21 Written answer to Mayoral Question, 1834/2007, 18th July, 2007.
The London Assembly Transport Committee found at the beginning of the year that crime on buses increased by just over 17% between 2004/05 and 2006/07.22
And violent crime on buses increased last year by 3.4%.23
The TfL Behaviour Code defines anti-social behaviour as,
> ‘*Using offensive or threatening language; smoking; playing music out loud; damaging or defacing an Oyster photocard; physical or verbal assault; unlawfully carrying a weapon and drug use.*’24
We believe that a fresh approach is required. We intend to launch a scheme called ‘**Payback London**’, whereby under-18s will have their passes permanently withdrawn for breaking the Behaviour Code and they will have to participate in community service to earn it back.
TfL, in consultation with local councils, will draw up a list of trusted and approved community voluntary groups (who have already completed CRB checks). Under-18s will be expected to complete a minimum number of hours’ service with these groups, in order to earn back their free travel.
### Police officers, Not Press Officers
Ken Livingstone has put a premium on advertising and hiring more press officers. It is a fact that he now has more press officers than the Prime Minister. 25
Transport for London forecast that they will spend £66 million on advertising, marketing and communications in 2007/08. This is an overspend of 65% on their original budget of £40 million.26 We propose to cap their spending in real terms, raising it to £67.3 million, rather than the £84 million Mr Livingstone wants.27 £16.5 million of the money saved will be redirected to the existing Safer Transport Teams and will pay for approximately an additional 440 PCSOs, doubling their strength.28
Safer Transport Teams are assigned to a borough. Each team currently consists of 18 PCSOs, two Sergeants and one Police Constable.
22 London Assembly Transport Committee, Crime and Disorder on London’s Buses, p.8, January 2008.
23 TfL press release 20th November 2007, using combined six month figures (April-September) for the years 2006 and 2007.
24 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresandtickets/1063.aspx
25 See The White Book, Central Office Information, for details of the Prime Minister’s Press Office. Details of Ken Livingstone’s press office, almost three times as large, can be found in the GLA Budget Committee Pre-Budget Report, December 2007.
26 GLA Group Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09; Consultation Document, p 82. http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/budgmtgs/2007/dec19/item06a.pdf
27 GLA Group Budget Report 08/09 at p82.
28 £150,000 of the additional money saved will also be used to fund the trial of live CCTV on buses.
Currently, 21 boroughs have a Safer Transport Team. This gives 441 officers, comprising 378 PCSOs and 63 fully-warranted officers.29
By releasing money earmarked for advertising and press officers, we will double the strength of Safer Transport Teams, and we will ensure that these extra officers are specifically assigned to patrol the bus network; providing visible reassurance and supporting Revenue Protection Inspectors to take the names and addresses of fare dodgers.
This increase in resources is required to tackle the growing problem of crime on buses. There was an increase in the absolute number of reported bus related crimes between 2005 and 2006. Crime remains 15 % (06/07 figures) above 2004/05 levels.30
Figures show that 65% of people have experienced or witnessed anti-social behaviour in the last two years.31
More importantly, Metropolitan Police figures show that violent crime on buses increased by 3.4% last year.32 Londoners no longer feel safe on buses, which is why we will prioritise resources to fund extra police and take action.
### Making Suburban Stations Safer
Several train stations do not have adequate levels of safety provision. The London Assembly Transport Committee has recently expressed its dismay at the ‘glaring loopholes (that) were often left in the security network’.33 In 2005, there were 12,360 crimes reported on the rail network.34
Most Londoners would agree that it is not uncommon to find many outer London station platforms unmanned after a certain time at night.
The British Transport Police cover a large rail network that extends way beyond London with a mere 427 fully-warranted officers and 303 PCSOs and support staff.35
The British Transport Police form a nationwide police presence dealing with issues of transport crime and trespass.36
29 Ibid. at p20.
30 Transport for London, Community Safety Plan 2007/8 p14.
31 Ibid.
32 TfL press release 20th November 2007, using combined six month figures (April-September) for the years 2006 and 2007.
33 Crime and Safety on London’s Suburban Railway Stations’ London Assembly Transport Committee p1.
34 Ibid. p.2.
35 Ibid. p.15 at 2005.
36 www.btp.police.uk/about.htm
In 2003/04, 15,208 offences were committed at overground stations. By 2005/06, that figure had grown to 19,303.^37
This is why we will release £3.1 million that has been earmarked for MPS advertising and spin doctors to put towards funding, approximately, an extra 50 fully-warranted officers.^38 We will specify that these new officers must patrol suburban station platforms, in particular the stations with the highest levels of crime.
This money will be found by cutting the number of press officers employed at the MPS, and reducing the MPS’s spend on non-recruiting publicity. Currently the MPS employs 73 press staff with salary costs of £3.6 million,^39 and is budgeted to spend £4 million on non-recruitment publicity in 2008/09.^40 By reducing the number of press staff to 50, and halving the publicity spend, we will redirect £3.1 million from marketing and spin to frontline policing.^41
We will work with local Borough Commanders on the ground and Train Operating Companies to identify the worst stations, and we will specify that the extra officers must be assigned to them.
We will also seek to reclaim the space in front of train stations by working with boroughs and train operating companies to investigate possible improvements both in the presentation of the stations and in the way that improvements are designed.
### Cracking Down on Fare Evasion
Punish the smaller offences and the larger offences will diminish. This principle has been deployed across the globe to great effect. The most famous example is perhaps that of New York, where a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ – the fastidious punishment of supposedly lower order offences – has enabled the New York Police Department to build persistent offender profiles, source information and solve the most serious crimes more quickly. A major plank of the New York success was in addressing fare evasion.
^37 Crime and Safety on Suburban Railway stations p.9
^38 This gives a total of £3.1 million, and we know that the MPA are putting the full cost of a police officer at £54,000^38 - this include kits and non-pay costs, as well as salary. Based on those numbers we could provide an estimated 57 additional officers. Provision of Additional Police Officers on Boroughs, MPA, 10^th January 2008.
^39 Policing London 2008-11 Business plan, Draft Version 2.10, p 39. http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/f/071119-05joint-appendix1.pdf
^40 MPA/MPS Draft Corporate Business Plan 2008-11 - Supporting Financial Submission, p17.
^41 The 3.1million breaks down as follows. We reduce 73 press officers to 50. This saving is a 32% reduction in total pay and overtime costs from £3,607m to £2,471m, saving of £1,136m. We save a further 2.0 million by then cutting down spend on non-recruitment publicity from £4,000m to £2,000m: MPA Finance Committee Report 07/08 Joint Appendix 1 p17, Joint Appendix 2 p39 respectively.
In London, we have a particular problem with fare evasion on bendy buses.
Although Transport for London (TfL) insists that fare evasion on bendy buses
is falling, Ken Livingstone’s own figures reveal the opposite.
In 2006, fare evasion rose from 2.3% to 3.18% on conventional buses. The
cost to the taxpayer was up from £28 million to £36.7 million.42 On bendy
buses it rose from 7.8% to 9.3% - over double that of a conventional bus.
Revenue loss on bendy buses alone in 2006 was £8 million. This represents a
total loss of £46.7 million. This works out at around £1 million per week in lost
revenue for the period covered.43
TfL’s approach to fare evaders is wholly inadequate. There is a greater focus
on PR and advertising campaigns than on the strong practical measures that
are necessary. The main penalty for fare evasion is a fine. The penalty fare on
most forms of transport is £20, with a fine of £1,000 for non-payment.44 This
assumes that the fine is enforced in the first place.
However, TfL deploys only around 300 Revenue Protection Inspectors on its
entire bus network, 200 Revenue Control Officers on the Underground and
around 200 traffic enforcement staff. Considering buses alone, with 7,700
normal buses and 300 bendy buses,45 this amounts to a minimal chance of
being caught – and offenders know it. Route 18, for example, from Harrow
through Wembley triangle and surrounding areas, has been nicknamed ‘the
free bus to central London.’46
Doubling the strength of Safer Transport Teams by adding around 400
PCSOs will enable us to crack down on fare evasion. In addition to providing
a visible uniformed presence on the buses, they would also complement the
work of Revenue Protection Inspectors, providing back-up and support to
catch more fare dodgers.
Another way to reduce fare evasion would be to beef up the powers of
Revenue Protection Inspectors. Currently, when a Revenue Protection
Inspector finds an offender, he or she must call the police before they can
compel a name or address to be given.
We believe that this arrangement is inadequate, and we will direct the MPA to
investigate, in partnership with TfL, giving Revenue Protection Inspectors
greater powers including those to take names and addresses to hold more
fare dodgers to account.47
Specifically, this would be the ‘power to require the name and address of a
person acting in an anti-social manner.’ This would require the Chief Officer of
42 Question 0076 / 2007, Mayoral Questions.
43 Ibid.
44 TfL’s penalty fare schedule.
45 GLA Press Release, 3-10-2005 476.
46 Question 3116 / 2007, Mayoral Questions.
17
the Metropolitan Police, (in this case the Commissioner) designating each
Revenue Protection Inspector with the powers of Schedule 4 pt. 1, under
those granted to him by s.38 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
## International Initiatives
The experience of other cities is highly instructive as to what can be achieved
through focusing on minor offences such as fare evasion.
### New York
In 1993 the New York Police Department began an unprecedented attack on
quality-of-life offences. This is a practical approach in line with the ‘broken
windows’ theory, which holds that low-level crime and misdemeanors create
an environment in which more serious crimes can flourish.
In New York arrests for misdemeanors increased almost 100 % between 1994
and 1998 while arrests for felonies decreased 11.5 %. The city's crime rate
dropped over 50 % during the same period.48
This was accomplished by cracking down on offences such as fare evasion –
and linking them to the innovative management system, Compstat (along with
a devolution of responsibility to a more local, precinct level).
Recognising that information is key to crime control, the Department
overcame its historic three-to-six-month lag in reporting statistics. It now
maintains updated, reliable information on crime and quality-of-life data, with
data obtained from low-level crimes used to help solve high-level crimes.
Crimes such as fare evasion are now strictly monitored in strategy meetings,
with increased *visible* police presence ensuring that small crimes do not
remain unpunished and are not ‘*let go*.’ Commanders are also held
accountable for felonies and misdemeanors in their areas.
In the United States, 'Safe and Clean' teams have been established to ensure
that the streets are clean and that the residue of car crime such as broken
glass is removed every day, along with graffiti and fly-posters. Most US 'Safe
and Clean' projects are funded through Business Improvement Districts where
local businesses and, in some cases, residents pay a tax levy for these extra
services.49
We support Business Improvement Districts and will encourage their growth
across London.
48 ‘The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City’ Langan and Rose, US Department of
Justice, Bureau of Statisticians.
49 See for example www.capitolriverfront.org
## Australia
In response to perceptions of increasing crime on public transport in the late 1980s, Victoria Public Transport Corporation in Australia included a 'travel safe' programme, including the removal of existing graffiti and all new graffiti to be removed upon discovery. Following the introduction of this programme, there were significant reductions in vandalism and graffiti, with window breakages declining from 700 to 120 a week.⁵⁰
This was taken a stage further by Queensland Rail in Australia, through the introduction of '*Train Watch*.' This involves train staff, passengers, people who live near railway property, and primary and secondary schools. A specially designed 24-hour free call service is available to report problems. The campaign focuses on the cost of graffiti and vandalism and shows how they divert money that could be spent in improving services and staff working conditions. It encourages local communities to develop 'ownership' of nearby railway property and the trackside.⁵¹
New South Wales has placed fare evasion at the top of their agenda and as a result witnessed drops in numbers of fare evasion between two audits on the matter in 2000⁵² and 2006.⁵³
### Live CCTV on Buses
We have already committed to spending £150,000 on a live CCTV trial for 20 of the most dangerous bus routes in London.⁵⁴ This trial will run over a 6-month period to assess the success of the scheme before rolling out across the network.
The 20 trial routes will be chosen subject to consultation with the Metropolitan Police who will identify the routes with the most consistent record of trouble.
The purchase of the new equipment currently runs at £3,000-£3,500 per bus. The running cost per bus per month is around £45 depending on how many buses roll out the scheme.⁵⁵
The technology would enable existing operators to instantly access real-time, live CCTV whenever they receive a code red call. This would allow them to immediately prioritise which calls required emergency police assistance. In addition, police officers can dial into the system using a code and see what is going on in real-time using their mobile phones. They can then record the
⁵⁰ ‘The Promise of Public Service Crime Prevention’ Grabosky and James at p25.
⁵¹ See www.citytrain.com.au/citytrain/contact_us for details of the hotline. Also see ‘Queensland Rail’s Citytrain Security System: an Integrated Approach,’ paper given 7ᵗʰ July 1999.
⁵² Railcorp 2000-2001 Annual Report.
⁵³ Parliament of New South Wales, Full Day Hansard Transcript, 5ᵗʰ May 2005.
⁵⁴ See foot note 27.
⁵⁵ All figures courtesy of Integrated Security Solutions.
footage in real time, and use this as instant evidence rather than currently
having to wait for the bus companies to send them a DVD of recorded
footage, which wastes huge amounts of time.
In June 2004, when Ken Livingstone was elected for a second term, there
were 387 code red calls for anti-social behaviour on buses.56 In October
2006, the number was 697,57 an increase of 80%. Equivalent figures are not
available in the November report, although it was noted that youth crime and
anti-social behaviour remain the number one issue on the network.
Crime remains a major problem on buses. In the last year violent crime, drugs
and fraud have increased on buses. Violent crime has gone up by 3.4% and
drug offences by 66.3%.58 Tackling this issue is an immediate priority.
56 TfL Surface Advisory Panel Report,January 2007 p16.
57 Ibid.
58 TfL press release 20th November 2007, using combined six month figures (April-
September) for the years 2006 and 2007.
## 3. Tackling Knife and Gun Crimes
* I will make it a policing priority to tackle knife and gun crime and not accept defeat. I will drive out the culture of political targets that distort priorities.
* I will provide funding for handheld scanners and knife arches to use at Tube and rail stations, and other large-scale public events.
* I will direct the LDA to fund youth community groups that provide mentoring schemes.
* I will ringfence part of the LDA budget specifically for community sports projects.
* I will make designing out crime a key priority in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing strategy to prevent creating poor-quality housing where crime flourishes.
### Handheld Scanners
In February 2006 the British Transport Police began Operation Shield in London in a bid to tackle offensive weapons. The operation employed hand-held metal detectors and walk-through detection arches to crack down on offensive weapons. Such operations have been rolled out across the country.
In one day at the Luton Carnival in 2006, 90 weapons were recovered including 57 knives, a taser, knuckledusters, four CS and pepper spray canisters and batons.59
The British Transport Police point to the fact that more than 130 people nationally have been arrested for possession of knives or other weapons. Around 300 weapons have been recovered due to Operation Shield.60
The MPA has a policy to maintain a general reserve, including the emergency/contingency reserve of at least 2 % of net revenue expenditure; the current budget proposal includes a reserve of 2.4% we propose to reducing this to 2.3%, thus releasing £2.6 million.61
The BTP are currently using the Garrett PD6500i Walkthrough Metal Detector for Operation Shield.62 The Metropolitan Police have a preferred
59 British Transport Police, Annual Report 2006/07, page 15.
60 British Transport Police, press release, 15 December 2007.
61 Mayor's Background Statement in support of his Draft Consolidated Budget for 2008-09, p7.
62http://www.regton.com/security.htm
model for handheld scanners called AD11-2, provided by Adams Electronics
Ltd. The cost per unit to the Met is £100, although Boroughs are free to
choose alternatives.63 The PD6500i costs £4,869.64
£2.6 million will thus make a considerable difference. It could, for example,
pay for an additional 26,000 handheld scanners. However, the police may
choose to spend some of the additional funds on new knife archways.
We will make the funding available, and the police will be free to choose the
most appropriate balance.
We believe that greater use of handheld scanners, particularly at transport
hubs, will hinder the mobility of those who choose to carrying knives and
guns. By hindering their mobility, we will begin to make inroads into greatly
reducing their use.
## Supporting Youth and Sports Projects
There are some superb organisations working with young people in London.
Currently, many of them struggle for funding and we will conduct a full review
of all LDA project funding to ensure that the money is directed to youth groups
who provide mentoring schemes.
We will also ensure that LDA money is ringfenced for community sports
projects.
The All Stars Boxing club, for example, on Harrow Road is used by people
from many backgrounds and of varying ages. It is under threat as it requires
considerable repair work. In October 2007 a petition was launched calling for
the work of the club to be recognised in the community and a proper
settlement be arranged to secure its future. The petition now has over 1,000
signatories.
The club was set up by Isola Akay in 1974. It has produced a string of
champions, and helped numerous disadvantaged children. As Mr Akay says
himself, sport, “is a kind of activity which has no barriers ... it doesn't matter
which colour [you are], it doesn't matter which background, people are met on
equal standards.”65
There are other community groups who dedicate themselves to intervening
early before young men get sucked into gangs and a life of crime, such as the
Eastside Young Leaders Academy (EYLA), XLP, Prospex and Kids Company.
EYLA admits boys who have at least one parent of African or Caribbean
origin. The Academy’s programme complements the boys’ normal schooling.
63 Conversation with the Metropolitan Police.
64 http://www.metaldetectorshop.co.uk/security/walkthroughmetaldetectors.htm
65 http://www.allstars-gym.co.uk/page.asp?id=19
It does not replace it. Boys on the cusp of exclusion are referred by local primary and secondary school head teachers after the commitment of the parents of the boy has been sought and gained. Activities include a weekly Saturday school, after-school tutoring, summer residential camps and community service.
The discipline at EYLA is intentionally tough. Boys wear a uniform and high attendance and punctuality are demanded at all times.
Demands are high. The EYLA aims for excellent academic standards, full engagement in community and civic activities and the avoidance of crime.
It provides a model of what can be done in the most deprived of communities with inspired local leadership and energy.66
Data collated from the children’s schools and parents, together with an external audit undertaken in June 2005 show that there has been an 80% reduction in short-term exclusions, a 70% improvement in academic achievement and a 90% change in career plans. Only 5% of boys drop out of EYLA.67
Kids Company is a registered charity founded by Camila Batmanghelidjh in 1996. It supports children who lack proper parental care and offers them a “preventative and reparative therapeutic service”. Nearly 12,000 people are supported directly, 800 of them parents and teachers.68
The LDA do not currently ringfence any money for community sports projects, although some individual projects that apply for LDA money which contain an element of community sport, have been funded.
An IPSOS MORI poll for the Youth Justice Board asked young people what they would like the Government to do to stop other young people offending .It found that they were most likely to suggest the introduction of harsher punishments to stop young people offending (38%). However, a similar proportion mention helping them to get a job (37%), while just over a third (34%) say providing better access to sports facilities, youth centres and events in the evenings and weekends would help.69
## Designing Out Crime
Few things affect people’s quality of life more than crime and the fear of crime. Violent crime and anti-social behaviour are wrecking lives and undermining communities.
66 http://www.eyla.org.uk/.
67 http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/news_item/youth_black_leadership.asp.
68 http://kidsco.org.uk/?page_id=39
69 http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/News/Youngsterswantmoreactionsonsafety.htm?area=AllNewsEvents
The Mayor, borough councils, planners, and house builders all have a role to
play to use best practice to design out crime and to make our communities
safer and stronger.
Houses that meet ACPO Secured By Design (SBD) standards experience a
quarter less crime than non-SBD houses, and residents’ fear of crime is
lower.70
Most local authorities have sought to cut crime on housing estates by
following the principles outlined in Secured By Design, a national scheme of
the Association of Chief Police Officers. This includes creating defensible
space; organising the built environment so that anti-social behaviour is less
likely to be ignored; creating space that generalises a sense of ownership,
such as front gardens, rather than space which promotes anonymity; and
promoting natural surveillance from residents’ houses.
Evidence suggests that where these guidelines have been followed, crime
has fallen. For instance, a study by Bedfordshire Police reported crime and
disorder on a 4,500-home development incorporating Secured By Design
principles will average approximately 680 incidents a year. The same number
of homes in an estate incorporating the Government’s planning principles will
result in 4,080 crime and disorder incidents a year, six times as many as on a
Secured By Design development.71
The Association of Chief Police Officers has written that:
_“Natural surveillance is a cornerstone in the achievement of community_
_safety. Where the likelihood of being seen is low, the risks perceived by_
_potential offenders are also low and the likelihood of crimes being_
_committed will be higher. Ensuring that spaces around buildings,_
_footpath routes, open spaces and parking areas in residential_
_developments are open to view from adjoining occupied properties_
_and/or well-trafficked routes can assist in discouraging criminal activity,_
_by increasing the risk of detection, reducing opportunities for crime and_
_making potential offenders feel more vulnerable. The greater the level_
_of use of public spaces by responsible citizens, the greater will be the_
_degree of natural surveillance.”72_
Ken Livingstone is failing to prioritise the principles of designing out crime. He
mentions the principle only once in his statutory Draft Housing Strategy.
There are several examples of the concept working around England and
Wales;
70 Home Office press release, Design Alliance: fighting crime from the drawing board, 14
August 2007. See: http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/design-alliance
71 Bedfordshire Police, The Cost of Policing New Urbanism, April 2003, page 3.
72 Association of Chief Police Officers, Secured By Design Principles report, 3.1.
## Royds, Bradford
In 1995, the Royds area was one of the worst in the UK for house burglaries,
with a divisional average of 138 forced entries per 1,000 households. Working
with local police and residents, architects implemented Secured By Design
principles relating to layout, defensible space, access opportunities and
natural surveillance.73 Between 1998 and 2003, there were no forced-entry
burglaries in Royds and there was a 69 % reduction in dwelling burglary
across the whole area.74
## Kent
Renewal.net (part of the Government's National Strategy Action Plan for
neighbourhood renewal) has reported that introducing Secured By Design
principles into the Swanley Estate in Kent led to an immediate increase in
residents' sense of privacy and security. This was matched by a 92%
reduction in burglary, an 86% reduction in criminal damage, an 85% reduction
in theft from vehicles, and a 64% reduction in offences involving violence.75
## West Yorkshire
After two housing estates in West Yorkshire were refurbished to Secured By
Design standards, crime on the estates fell by 67 % and 54 % respectively,
between April 1999 and March 2000. For incidents of theft of a motor vehicle,
theft from a motor vehicle and taking without consent, there were 42 % fewer
offences following the refurbishment. 76
## Gwent
An analysis of recorded crime data on 9,173 housing association properties in
Gwent between 1996 and 1998 found that: ‘While the non-SBD homes
suffered an annual burglary rate per thousand homes of 15.9, the SBD
sample was 6.9’. There were 5.1 vehicle thefts per thousand households for
non-SBD properties, but just 1.9 per thousand households for SBD
properties.77
73 Royds Community Association, Housing by Royds Community
Association, http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/dac/royds.pdf, 23 March 2006.
74 Home Office/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Safer Places: The Planning System and
Crime Prevention, 2004, page 59.
75 Renewal.net Solving the Problem, Secured By Design, p. 4.
76 Brown J., Designing out crime – Gwent, a case study, Secured By Design housing within
West Yorkshire, September 2000.
77Brown J., Designing out crime – Gwent, a case
study, www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/home_office/autumn2000/p142.pdf, 24 March 2006.
## Championing Diversity
The police should better represent the community they serve, and they are
currently failing to do that. Although the situation has recently shown signs of
improvement, we still need to do more.78
In October 2007 the percentage of female police officers was 20.8% and just
8.0% were officers from BME communities – this is not good enough.79
We will conduct a review to investigate how we can significantly improve
matters.
78 The number of police staff joining the MPS is also relatively low in comparison to strength,
with 437staff joining in the 4 months to July 2007. Of those staff joining, 55.1% were female
and 21.1% from Black & Minority Ethnic community. MPA management information report, 4
October 2007.
79 MPA management information report, October 4th 2007.
## 4. Help the Ignored Victims of Sexual Violence
* I will provide stable, long-term funding to set up new Rape Crisis Centres in London.
### Rape Crisis Centres
Official figures show that over Ken Livingstone’s two terms in City Hall, rape in London has increased.⁸⁰
Metropolitan Police statistics show that rape and sexual assaults have increased since the Mayor took office. There were 546 more sexual offences recorded in the capital during 2006/07 than 2000/01, including 115 more cases of rape last year.
Yet there is only one Rape Crisis Centre for the whole of London, based in Zone 5, and none in the areas where rape offences occur most.⁸¹
Government funding for the centres is extremely volatile, but this is something the Mayor can reverse by providing long-term, ringfenced funding from the GLA directly.⁸²
The number of offences has increased in 22 of London’s 32 boroughs since 2000.⁸³
Over 9,305 sexual offences were committed in 2006/7, including 2,304 counts of rape. The boroughs with the highest number of rape offences were
⁸⁰ The Metropolitan Police Service records the number of rape offences by borough for each financial year. The last complete financial year is 2006/7 and forms the basis of evidence. Details can be found at: http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/2007/2006_07_yend.xls. We are comparing these figures with those from financial year 2001/02, which are available here; http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/tables/data/fy01.xls. The MPS defines “offences” as ‘confirmed reports of crimes being committed. All data relates to "notifiable offences" - which are designated categories of crimes that all police forces in England and Wales are required to report to the Home Office.’
⁸¹ The Rape & Sexual Abuse Support Centre is based in Croydon and offers free confidential support through a help line and face-to-face counselling. See: http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/C.html
⁸² The Government announced that funding for Rape Crisis Centres in 2007/8 would not be guaranteed from the Victims Fund and individual Rape Crisis Centres were notified that funding would not be renewed. See, for example, Half of Rape Crisis Centres Face Closure, The Guardian, 3 July 2007 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2117407,00.html and Rape Crisis Centres Hit By Funding Gap, The Independent, 5 July 2007 at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-support-centres-hit-by-funding-gap-456012.html
⁸³ According to the MPS financial year 2006/7 figures, rape offences increased in Westminster, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwalk, Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Redbridge, Havering, Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Sutton, Merton, Kingston Upon Thames, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Harrow, Barnet, Enfield between the 2000/1 and 2006/7 financial years. The number of rape offences remained the same in Waltham Forest. The number of offences also increased at Heathrow Airport, from one to three, but this has not been included in our data.
Westminster, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark,
and Lambeth – where on average at least two rape offences took place each
week.84
London is served by only one Rape Crisis Centre, in Croydon. Several Rape
Crisis Centres have closed in London because of a lack of funding – the last
centre to close was in Hounslow in 2005.85 Yet Metropolitan Police statistics
show that the number of rape and sexual offences in Hounslow are higher
today than in 2000, therefore the need for support is even greater.86
Rape Crisis Centres offer long-term support to survivors of sexual violence,
including women dealing with historic experiences, such as child or early
adulthood sexual abuse. They are operated by the third sector, and are
independent of the Metropolitan Police Service. Sexual Assault Referral
Centres provide support only for the first six months after a victim makes
contact.87 Although there are three Sexual Assault Referral Centres, or Haven
centres, in London (based in Camberwell, Paddington, and Whitechapel),88
we believe Rape Crisis Centres will be able to offer long-term support to
survivors of sexual violence, including women dealing with historic
experiences, such as child or early adulthood sexual abuse.
It is unacceptable for there to be just one centre, in Zone 5, when the number
of sexual offences in the capital is higher today than in 2000. London has lost
two rape crisis centres over the last decade.89
London does not have enough Rape Crisis Centres, because of woefully
inadequate funding from the Labour government. We will call upon the
government to provide extra funding for this vital service. Additionally, we will
act immediately to provide long-term funding for four Rape Crisis Centres in
London.
We would provide funding for these centres by cutting the number of GLA
spin doctors.
Current annual expenditure at the centre in one remaining centre in Croydon
was £178,823 in 2006/7.90 Adjusting this for inflation gives an estimate of
annual running costs of £186,000 in 2008/09.91
84 The MPS data for the financial year 2006/7, records 131 rape offences for Westminster;
109 for Hackney; 103 for Tower Hamlets; 107 for Greenwich; 106 for Lewisham; 118 for
Southwark; and 127 for Lambeth.
85 End Violence Against Women, Map of Gaps: The Postcode Lottery of Violence Against
Women Support Services, November 2007, p. 35.
86 The MPS lists 78 rape offences for financial year 2006/7 – compared to 48 rape offences
for 2000/1.
87 Sexual Assault Referral Centres: Developing Good Practice and Maximising Potential,
Home Office Research Study 285, July 2004.
88 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=12171
89 Op cit, End Violence Against Women. The London Rape Crisis Centre near King’s Cross
closed in 2003.
90 See the Charity Commission’s website, http://www.charity-
commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=1085104
Therefore to secure the funding for this centre and three others would require
ringfencing of around £744,000 annually.92
The number of people employed by Ken Livingstone’s personal media and
marketing team has swelled from 20 in 2001 to 70 in 2007.93 The GLA Budget
Committee have strongly criticised Mr Livingstone for adding “unnecessary
posts” to the budget. 94
By contrast the Prime Minister’s Press Office employs just 23 people. In
2007/08 the budget for Mr. Livingstone’s Media and Marketing team was more
than £3.6 million.95
A reduction of this by 20% would yield the £744,000 which would fund our
commitment to dramatically increasing access to support services for rape
victims.
Quite simply, we believe that it is more important to fund Rape Crisis Centres
than press officers.
This will go a long way to ending the funding uncertainty for the Croydon
centre and ensuring there is stable funding for charities to deliver this kind of
support in the capital. It is in sharp contrast to the present situation in which
funding decisions are often made midway through the financial year –
meaning that Rape Crisis Centres are forced to survive hand-to-mouth and
often face the threat of imminent closure.
91 For details on the UK inflation rate for 2008 see HM Treasury, Forecasts for the UK
Economy, 16 January 2008 at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/2/C/forcomp200801.pdf
92 This is based on providing funding in line with the outgoings declared to the Charity
Commission by the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre at Croydon for the financial year
2006/7. Funding would be secured at this level for the Croydon centre and be available at the
same level for a further three centres in London.
93 London Assembly’s Budget Committee's response to the Mayor of London's 'GLA Group
Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09 Consultation Document.
94 London Assembly’s Budget Committee's response to the Mayor of London's 'GLA Group
Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09 Consultation Document.
95 GLA, Corporate Plan, 2007-2010. In 2007/08 the budget for the Media and Marketing team
was £3.638 million. A reduction of this by 20% would yield the £720,000.
29
## 5. Demanding a Police Service Accountable to You
- I will provide local neighbourhoods with New York-style crime maps, to enable residents to hold local police to account.
- I will direct the MPA to ensure Borough Commanders hold monthly, open public meetings.
## New Technology
### *Crime Mapping*
Crime mapping is a proven technique for increasing public safety. Employing modern technology, officers can use crime data to create electronic maps showing crime trends, hotspots and patterns. It enables commanders to deploy resources (additional officers or CCTV, for example) more effectively. Crime data can also be combined with other data, such as statistics on deprivation and housing, to help develop effective longer term policies for crime reduction.96
Crime mapping has the additional benefit of providing the public with key information.
The Home Office appears to support crime mapping, but has so far failed to deliver on making it available to the public:
> “The use of crime mapping has helped to better inform and overcome inaccurate perceptions of where problems are located, particularly in terms of presenting information in a visually accessible format to a diverse audience, helping all to more effectively contribute to discussions about crime problems.”97
Currently the Met has an electronic interactive map showing monthly crime statistics by borough and ward. We believe this can be built upon to be more detailed and easier to use, and the information can be used as a basis for the introduction of New York-style crime mapping in London.98
The Compstat (short for ‘computer comparison statistics’) system in New York made crime mapping famous. Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton were determined to revolutionise the city, and they did.
---
96 UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/crime_mapping/index.php
97 Home Office Police Standards Unit Crime Mapping: Improving Performance A good practice guide for front line officers, 2005, page 4.
98 http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/svg_info.htm.
Compstat is used to gather information about crimes, before generating a computerised map of crime patterns. Senior officers meet twice weekly to develop tactics in light of these patterns, and allocate resources accordingly.
Compstat was introduced in 1994, and swiftly cut crime. Between 1993 and 1995 the total crime rate declined by 27 % across the city, and murder fell by 39 %.99
In this country, we tend to talk about GIS, which stands for ‘Geographical Information System’. Crime mapping has taken place here, but is less widespread, and is only used internally.
In Westminster, for example, patterns in robbery and snatch theft were identified by employing techniques that accurately measured the number of pedestrians at street level. Combining these pedestrian counts with street crime data helped identify where the risk of being a victim of these crimes was highest.100
We want to see crime mapping undertaken on a capital-wide basis. What is most frustrating is that much of the technology is already at the disposal of officers, as the Home Office has made clear:
“*Most police forces and constabularies already possess the core infrastructure for crime mapping. It involves four elements; hardware; software; data; and properly trained people.*”101
We will ensure that the Metropolitan Police continue to publish their local crime statistics online on a regular, monthly basis.102 However, this should only be the start. We believe that more crime mapping data should be made readily available to the public.
We also believe that this practice could extend beyond the police.
Leading experts in the crime mapping field have confirmed that there are no technical barriers that would prevent the release of the data that would make this possible.
99 Harvard University Government Innovators
Network, http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=3716
100 Home Office Police Standards Unit Crime Mapping: Improving Performance A good practice guide for front line officers, 2005, page 14.
101 Home Office Police Standards Unit Crime Mapping: Improving Performance A good practice guide for front line officers, 2005, page 15.
102 Monthly is the most practical timeframe because it allows for data cleaning. For example, someone may report a crime as “robbery”, which for police records would be coded appropriately, but further investigation reveals that it is in fact a case of theft from person, an entirely different data code. Also, among police forces that carry out internal crime mapping, one month is currently by far the most common interval for updating record. See Review of GIS-based information sharing systems, Spencer Chainey and Chloe Smith, Home Office Online Report 02/06 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0206.pdf
Already there are many different mapping systems of the UK available to the
public online, including Yahoo, Google and Streetmap. From a technical point
of view it is a very simple operation to overlay an online street map with crime
statistics.
It is time for our response to crime to catch up with other walks of life that
have been opened up to the information revolution. The web has
revolutionised people’s access to information and their application of it, and
an important part of this has been the democratisation of mapping.
Experimentation on the web is making maps more central than ever to the
sourcing, organisation and presentation of information.
Ordinary web users realise that maps provide a canvas to bring together and
clearly present various ‘layers’ of data simultaneously. In many cases millions
of contributors are pooling their knowledge, as with the growth of sites of the
written word such as Wikipedia – and together they are improving everyone’s
access to useful information: tourist spots, school rankings, weather and
environmental conditions, aircraft flight paths, and so on.
Map production is no longer specialist. Competing online search providers are
introducing simple tools, making the collation and communication of data in a
map format more accessible than ever before.
There are several examples of crime mapping (some which are produced
independently of local police forces) around the world already, which proves it
can be done.
### Chicagocrime.org
The journalist, Adrian Holovaty, was one of the first to combine publicly
available data from one site (in this case, the Chicago Police Department's
online database) with a digital map supplied by another site (in this case,
Google) to create the award-winning Chicagocrime.org, a freely browsable
database of crimes reported in Chicago. It allowed users to filter crimes by
multiple criteria (e.g. crime type; ZIP code; date), and view them on one map.
Every city block in Chicago was covered by a page and a RSS feed. The site
closed on 31 January 2008, as its host server is now out-of-date. The original
designers have in any case superseded the site with a bigger and better
public service site, “Every Block”. Covering three cities – Chicago, New York
and San Francisco – this site collates a wide range of information and news,
on issues ranging from crime, street closures and liquor license applications
to lots and found postings and business reviews. It allows users to keep track
of what is happening in their city, their neighbourhood and on their street via
functions to browse by area or news type – and of course, everything can be
displayed on maps.
## CrimeReports.com
The entrepreneurial drive in the US has attracted private enterprise to produce their own crime maps, for example creating the technology that will allow police departments to make their crime statistics available on web-based maps to local residents. For example, CrimeReports.com provides software and services to law enforcement agencies, combining the value of police data with Google-based mapping and an analytics module. Members of the public may also sign up to receive free email alerts based on user-defined parameters (e.g. geography, crime types, frequency, etc.). The Metropolitan Police of Washington DC uses this system, and they make an XML data feed available to the public. Currently, Crimereports.com's services are free to both residents and police departments, run by a private Utah-based enterprise.
## upmystreet.com
We want to stimulate here in the UK the sort of innovation that has emerged in the US. Our entrepreneurial spirit is already in evidence – a leading example is the website upmystreet.com, founded in 1998 by an internet agency, later registering as a limited company and funded in part by advertising and sponsorship.
This site allows users to explore – by postcode search – a range of categories, including: policing and crime, schools, transport, leisure, council tax, home insurance, mortgages, broadband, digital TV, house price trends, property valuation reports, removals, news & views.
For crime, it uses Home Office figures, presented per 1,000 of the population within local authority areas and documents six crime types:
* Violence against the person offences (these range from murder to less serious offences)
* Sexual offences
* Robbery offences
* Burglary dwelling offences
* Theft of a motor vehicle offences
* Theft from a motor vehicle offences
We believe London, as a leading world city, should embrace technological change like this. By using existing crime mapping data, and by exploring models from around the world, we believe that we can create a crime mapping system that is open to all Londoners. This will enable them to hold the police to account more effectively, and thus improve police performance.
There are other forms of new technology we intend to embrace to keep us ahead in the fight against crime.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is one such area we will look at.
Currently there are four ANPR units working across London. Each ANPR unit has a van with camera and computer technology that can read registration
plates. It then compares the plate with databases like the Police National
Computer.
If something crops up on one of the databases, the unit can move in. It also
means that serious criminals may be hauled in for a car that is not street legal,
and that they are denied the use of the roads.
In 2005 – 2006 the units were making an average of 200 arrests per month.103
## More Accountability
Increasing police accountability will boost Londoners’ confidence in the police.
The more accountable they are, the more responsive they will be.
There should be a stronger link between local people and their Borough
Commanders. There is currently a structure to enable local people to question
local police chiefs, like Police Community Consultative Groups and Borough
Community Engagement Groups. For example, Haringey and Newham both
have police and community forums.
However, in practice, most local residents do not know about such
arrangements, and they are poorly attended.
We will direct the Commissioner to ensure that Borough Commanders hold
open public meetings every month, where they will answer questions from
local residents. We will expect these meetings to be convenient and well
publicised. Community engagement will be further bolstered by the greater
availability of crime mapping data.
103 http://www.metpolice.uk/traffic/departments.htm
# Building a Better London
Boris Johnson
## Building a Better London
London is one of the most desirable places to live in the country, offering better job prospects and cultural amenities than anywhere else in the UK. But the price of these benefits is a rising cost of living that is reducing Londoners’ quality of life.
The single biggest effect on this is the cost of housing. House prices in London have accelerated faster than wages over the last eight years, and many Londoners now cannot afford to buy a home in their own city.
Those lucky enough to own their home have to work longer hours to meet ever-rising mortgage costs, and those still searching have to take on mountains of debt in order to get on the ladder.
After eight years under Labour’s Ken Livingstone, housing waiting lists in some areas have almost tripled, while fewer affordable homes are being built and the quality of developments has declined. The number of first-time buyers in the city has almost halved.
We urgently need fresh thinking to get more homes built and to give a helping hand to those who want to own their own home.
We need a fresh approach to help low-income Londoners move off waiting lists and into homes that are affordable and high quality.
We need a new era of cooperation between London’s Mayor and the borough councils, to forge the best solutions for local communities.
We must embrace fresh ideas and break with the tired approach of the past.
My vision is a London where the quality of what we build is as important as the quantity; a place where young families can afford a home of their own; a city where we value and protect open green spaces and historic views.
If elected, I will enact the following measures;
## My Pledges
I will:
1. **Help More Londoners Afford Their Own Home**
* Release GLA-owned land and £130 million from the Regional Housing Pot to launch a new ‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’, which will be open to first-time buyers frozen out of Government schemes
* Work with the boroughs to build 50,000 more affordable homes by 2011
* Invest £60 million from the Regional Housing Pot to start renovating the capital’s 84,205 empty properties to help low-income Londoners off waiting lists
* Incentivise the boroughs to release dormant housing to those stuck in bed and breakfast accommodation, by returning the Mayor’s precept to them
* Work with local councils to deliver more family-sized homes
* Increase shared ownership schemes for low-income families by a third
* Protect private tenants from unscrupulous landlords by publishing an online ‘Fair Rents Guide’
* Explore the possibility of a tenant deposit scheme with a guaranteed arbitration period of one month
2. **Design Developments To Combat Crime**
* Amend the London Plan to attach more importance to designing out crime, without compromising the aesthetic quality of developments
3. **Protect Green Spaces and Historic Views**
* Reinstate planning rules that protect the views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Palace of Westminster and reinforce protection around new viewing corridors
* Toughen up the London Plan to prevent development on domestic gardens and use planning agreements to protect small shops
* Encourage builders to build more environmentally-friendly homes in the private sector and encourage boroughs to adopt the ‘Merton Rule’ for on-site renewable energy
* Protect the green belt by using the Mayor’s powers to refuse applications to build on it
## What We Need To Do:
A huge number of Londoners are finding it difficult to get on the housing ladder. There are the low-income Londoners who are stuck on housing waiting lists, wanting to be housed in affordable, desirable, permanent homes, and there are middle-income Londoners on good wages for whom the prospect of home ownership is still a distant dream.
If we are to improve the quality of life for all Londoners then we must do something about the impact housing has on the rising cost of living.
I will help **first-time buyers** who are frozen out of existing Government schemes by releasing surplus land from the GLA estate for new housing. The homes will be used to form the new ‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’. These homes will be guaranteed to be at least 20% cheaper than similar types of housing in the local area, and will be financed by a £130 million surplus from the Regional Housing Pot.
Londoners who cannot afford to own their home will be able to purchase a share of the property, and be able to build up, over time, a bigger stake to help them subsequently purchase on the open market.
I will raise the income level required for ‘FirstSteps’ eligibility above that set by Government schemes, to reflect the unique situation in London, where the cost of housing has outpaced average wages.
New schemes should be operated by not-for-profit housing cooperatives, allowing residents a greater say over their area. These are proven to build stronger communities, reduce crime, and improve quality of life.
I will help **low-income Londoners on housing waiting lists** by returning long-term empty homes to the housing stock. I will achieve this by allocating a £60 million surplus from the ‘Decent Homes’ programme to renovate empty homes in the private sector, for the express purpose of housing those on waiting lists. At present, it is estimated there are some 84,000 empty homes in total across London that could be brought into use. I will also incentivise councils by giving them the Mayor’s share of Council Tax on the 10,000 dormant properties that London’s councils own, on the condition that they are reoccupied by a family on the housing waiting list for that area – in particular those stuck in bed and breakfast accommodation.
We need to take a **fresh approach to affordable housing**. I will work closely with local councils to deliver the 50,000 new units that London needs by 2011. The out-of-date adversarial approach of Ken Livingstone has failed to deliver the housing that London needs. His rigid and cosmetic targets have, more often than not, stifled development and suppressed the growth of affordable housing.
Affordable housing must be more than ‘decent’; it must be desirable. I will encourage
developers to work with housing associations at the design stage to improve the
aesthetic quality of new developments.
I am interested in outcomes, not processes. Often councils that focus on
increasing the number of affordable units – instead of limiting themselves to the
Labour Mayor’s rigid target – actually deliver more affordable homes. I will remove
the 50% target and replace it with a system whereby the Mayor agrees a yearly unit
target with each borough, with the aim of increasing their output year on year.
London needs more family-sized homes. I will amend the London Plan to include a
strong steer in favour of building affordable, family-sized units.
We must extend opportunities for home ownership to as many Londoners as
possible. I believe that shared ownership schemes provide the best opportunity for
this. They allow first-time buyers to purchase affordable shares that can increase as
their circumstances improve. Therefore, I will amend the London Plan to increase the
number of shared ownership units in London by a third.
I want to help the private tenants who live in London. I will launch a ‘Fair Rents
Guide’ on the Mayor’s website to help Londoners determine whether or not they
are getting a fair deal.
And as London continues to grow, we must think very carefully about the new
communities we create with housing developments. I will make designing out crime
a priority, and will amend the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing Strategy
accordingly. Poorly-lit streets, cramped conditions, inadequate transport connections
and even straightforward ugliness are the enemies of safety, and all of them help
crime to flourish.
I will protect historic views of London landmarks. Ken Livingstone has introduced
regulations that put views of St Paul’s and the Palace of Westminster at risk. I will
amend the London Plan to reinstate the original protection of ten historic views of
these landmarks, and strengthen protection for three new views: from St James’s
Park towards Horse Guards Road; the bridge over the Serpentine in Hyde Park to
Westminster; and Island Gardens, Isle of Dogs to the Royal Naval College. I believe
well-designed tall buildings should play a part in London’s development, but they
must not overshadow existing landmarks.
We need to protect London’s gardens. Last year alone, more than a thousand
gardens were concreted over in the capital. London was once known as a garden
city, but our private green spaces are fast being eroded. Ken Livingstone’s London
Plan has failed to protect London’s gardens from development, and I will stop the
garden grab by working with boroughs to strengthen the rules against such
development. This will help ensure new housing is built where appropriate, and
public spaces are protected.
4
I will protect London’s green belt, and help **regenerate the suburbs** by publishing a
separate strategy, to complement the London Plan, on how to encourage
sustainable economic growth in outer London. I will engage a group of leading
businesspeople, entrepreneurs and councillors in the outer London boroughs to draw
up the proposals. I will also help **protect the high street** by securing affordable retail
units for small, independent shops.
I want to end the top-down targets and diktats that are imposed on the boroughs. I
will adopt a fresh approach to housing in London to build varied and vibrant
communities, not just tick boxes. The current London Plan was designed for the
housing market of yesterday. Today’s challenges demand fresh thinking. If elected
as Mayor I will be committed to working in partnership with the boroughs to build a
better London – and to leave a lasting legacy for future generations of Londoners.
Boris Johnson
Conservative Candidate for London Mayor
## 1. Helping More Londoners To Afford Their Own Home
I will:
* Help people who do not qualify for Government intermediate housing schemes to benefit from a new ‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’, offering quality homes 20% below the local market rate, built on non-essential Brownfield land released by the GLA estate.
* Work closely with borough councils to deliver 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011, replacing the 50:50 split with a unit target agreed with each borough council.
* Amend the London Plan to increase the building of affordable family-sized homes.
* Increase the number of intermediate homes by a third in London, helping more low-income and key sector workers into home ownership.
* Facilitate a comprehensive audit of all London’s empty and ‘hidden homes’ to increase the social housing stock.
* Provide a further £60 million for the regeneration of empty homes on the condition they are let to Londoners in social housing need.
* Return the Mayor’s Council Tax precept to borough councils transferring their dormant stock to short life housing providers, to help relieve homelessness.
* Publish an online ‘Fair Rents Guide’ for London.
* Amend the London Plan to encourage boroughs to work together towards the delivery of the Thames Gateway.
* Make design quality central to the Housing Strategy, and call on developers to consult with housing associations at the planning stage of affordable housing developments.
## Unaffordable Housing
Getting on the housing ladder poses great problems for Londoners.
There is an affordability gap in London. Couples can realistically only purchase on the open market if their combined income is around £86,500.^(1) Metropolitan Home Ownership estimate that the average house price in London is thirteen times the average salary.^(2) The threshold for accessing intermediate schemes is £52,500 (or £60,000 for key sector workers), yet the average salary in London is £30,212 –
1. This is based on a conventional mortgage three times the buyer’s salary on a property of £288,615, the estimate by the Halifax of the average price paid by first-time buyers in London last year. We have also deducted the 10% paid as a deposit.
2. MHO, London Affordable Homes show press release, September 2007.
meaning that a couple earning the average salary (making a combined income of
£60,424) is disqualified from Government intermediate schemes.³
## Demand For Starter Homes
Under Ken Livingstone, London now has 40% fewer first-time buyers than it did five
years ago.⁴ This decline is being caused by property prices in the capital rising by
54% since 2002, while average wages lag well behind.⁵
We want to actively help first-time buyers by releasing non-essential Brownfield land
held by the GLA estate for lower cost housing development. The way in which the
estate is disposed of, and the accessibility of new homes built on it, will help those
Londoners who are unable to access either the open market or intermediate housing
schemes.
The crisis in first-time buying affects the whole of London. Today, buying in 30 of
London’s 32 boroughs is out of the reach of the average first-time buyer, compared
with just 12 boroughs five years ago.⁶ The only two boroughs in London now within
the reach of the average first-time buyer are Newham and Barking and Dagenham.⁷
We recognise that the central problem is raising sufficient capital to purchase on the
open market. The average price paid by a first-time buyer in London rose by 15%
last year to £289,167 – up from £187,693 in 2002.⁸ The average deposit paid by
first-time buyers in London this year was £61,964, up 49% since 2002.⁹ The average
first-time buyer in the capital paid £8,675 in stamp duty (at the 3% rate) compared
with the UK average of £1,751 (at 1%).¹⁰ None of this is helped by the fact that City
Hall now takes £311.25 in Council Tax on a Band D property – more than twice as
much as in 2001.¹¹
To help struggling first-time buyers, we intend to pilot a relatively new form of
housing for the UK – Below Market Rate (BMR) homes, which are guaranteed to be
priced at least 20% below the local market price and will be built on surplus
Brownfield land on the GLA estate. This new scheme will be called ‘FirstSteps
Housing Scheme’.
³ Office of National Statistics, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 7 November 2007.
⁴ 5th First-time buyer Review, Halifax, 22 December 2007.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Full list of towns FTB, Halifax, 22 December 2007.
⁷ Table 5, percentage of First-time buyers by Type of Property, 22 December 2007.
⁸ This is based on figures released on 10 March 2008 by Halifax on UK stamp duty charges for the start of this year. 2002
house prices are taken from table 7, Average House Price – First-time buyer Affordability by Post Town, 22 December 2007.
⁹ Table 6, First-time buyer Deposit by Region, Halifax, 22 December 2007.
¹⁰ This is based on figures released on 10 March 2008 by Halifax on UK stamp duty charges for the start of this year.
¹¹ Mayor of London Budget, 2008/9 and Mayor of London Budget, 2001/2.
## Helping Those The London Plan Forgot
We cannot set thresholds for qualification for Government intermediate housing, but we can set thresholds for qualification for new developments on the GLA estate. The Government’s intermediate housing thresholds may be appropriate for the rest of the UK, but do not suit London’s unique circumstances.
‘FirstSteps’ homes will be aimed at Londoners on low to middle incomes, who currently receive practically no help to get on the housing ladder. These homes will be open to all Londoners paying the basic rate of income tax, which means earning up to £34,600.12
In particular, this will assist couples currently frozen out of Government intermediate housing schemes. For instance, a two-income household in which both are earning over £26,250 but still pay the basic rate of income tax would not qualify for a Government scheme – but would for ‘FirstSteps’, because our scheme raises the threshold by £16,700.
‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’ homes will be in addition to the 50,000 new affordable homes already planned for London by 2011.
We recognise that low-income Londoners desperately need help to get on the housing ladder. But we should not ignore middle-income Londoners who are unable to buy on the open market. Recent press reports suggest that Ken Livingstone is promoting a scheme capped for two-income households at £35,000.13 This will lock out thousands of Londoners and is half the cap we are proposing for this scheme.
There are precedents for a more flexible approach on qualifying for intermediate housing. For example, the Government of Ireland’s 1999 Affordable Homes Scheme provides for the building of new homes on land owned or purchased by a local authority. It targets people with low to middle incomes and is primarily aimed at first-time buyers.14
By releasing ‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’ homes to people on moderate incomes, we would help a new generation of people onto the housing ladder. Evidence suggests that around 74% of people in discount homes build up enough capital to make their next purchase on the local open market.15
12 H.M. Revenue and Customs set the basic rate of income tax at £34,600 in 2007/8.
13 Ken: Get Crossrail right or it could ruin London, Evening Standard, 27 February 2008.
14 The Government of Ireland sets eligibility for a two-income household at the combined values of 2.5 times the larger salary plus the smaller salary below €100,000.
15 Burlington CLT, Permanently Affordable Home Ownership, May 2003.
## How ‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’ Works
By releasing GLA land, ‘FirstSteps’ shared ownership homes will be guaranteed at least 20% below the average local market price in London. This means that, based on prices paid by first-time buyers last year, these homes would be over £50,000 more affordable.
The experience of Ireland is relevant to London. Since 2002, the Dublin Government’s Affordable Housing Initiative has provided homes of the same design and quality standards as private market builds in the locality, but sold at least 20% below the local market price.16 Homes under the Affordable Housing Initiative are built on local authority or state land, with the initial assessment that 10,000 additional units can be provided across 70 sites.17
Below Market Rate (BMR) homes are central to delivering homes in the United States. Both the Mayors of San Francisco and California offer BMR homes to help people into the open market.18 Following the San Francisco model in particular, we will ensure new BMR homes under the ‘FirstSteps’ scheme on the released GLA estate will be available to households meeting specific income and first-time homeowner requirements. In addition to earning at the basic rate of income tax, neither individual should previously have been a home owner. If none of the leaseholders pay the basic rate of income tax after occupation, the unit must be re-sold within 12 months. Homes purchased through the ‘FirstSteps Housing Scheme’ will be subject to resale restrictions to ensure they can be resold only at a below-market-rate price to eligible Londoners who are unable to get onto the housing ladder.
## Identifying Development Land
The GLA estate is extensive. Both Transport for London (TfL) and the London Development Agency (LDA) own land that has either been developed for housing; or is non-essential land that could be used for new build.
The TfL Property Development Strategy team have identified surplus land on which some 7,000 residential homes could be built. We understand that no planning applications have been granted. The majority of the available units would be built at Hammersmith and Fulham (3,500 units), Kensington and Chelsea (913 units), and Hillingdon (610 units).19
16 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Affordable Housing Partnership report, Government of Ireland, 2007.
17 Sustaining Progress, Third Social Partnership report, June 2005.
18 Government of San Francisco, Mayor’s Office of Housing, Affordable Homes Factsheet, 2007.
19 MQTs number 225/2008: Housing Land.
The LDA owns 318 hectare of surplus land suitable for residential development,
which they estimate would provide 32,000 new homes.20 However, some of this
land has already had planning permission granted. We would not seek to obstruct
successful and current planning applications, but will seek to release the remaining
land for the ‘FirstSteps’ scheme.
We will not seek to release land held by either the Metropolitan Police Authority or
the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
## Cost-effective Land Release
We will release land held by the GLA under new cost-effective measures. Under
Circular 06/03 on the General Disposal Consent (England) 2003, land can now be
transferred to local community organisations, without incurring penalties from H.M.
Treasury.21
There are precedents for transferring public land for housing development under the
General Disposal Consent. Brent Borough Council released the freehold land on the
Chalk Hill Estate in Wembley to the Metropolitan Housing Trust. Basingstoke and
Deane Borough Council disposed of the freehold of undeveloped land at Foxdown,
in Hampshire, to Westbury Homes Ltd.22
## Community Land Trusts And Housing Cooperatives
We propose to sell the land to Community Land Trusts (CLTs). CLTs are non-profit,
tax-exempt, and open to all members of the local community, and are democratically
owned and controlled by key stakeholders.
By releasing the land to a CLT, we ensure that the units built on it remain affordable
for future generations. This ensures ‘FirstSteps’ homes can remain below market
price. The principle of transferring land to a CLT is already happening in the UK, but
on a very small scale. A recent example was the transfer of land by the local
authority to a CLT in Oldham, which was subsequently developed for residential
housing.23
CLTs do not usually manage housing units themselves. This would normally be
done through a mutual housing organisation (a cooperative), which can either lease
the land or become a shareholder in the CLT. Housing cooperatives are already
operating in London, and they would be open to work on this initiative. Cooperatives
are similar to Registered Social Landlords (RSL), but operated, in effect, as a charity
20 Ibid.
21 This Circular gives the GLA general consent to release land for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be
obtained where it promotes the economic, social or environmental well-being. The difference between the unrestricted value of
the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed £2 million.
22 Housing and Regeneration Bill, Committee Stage, Hansard, 17 January 2008.
23 Oldham Rochdale Pathfinder, Annual Market Renewal Annual Report, 2005.
with a greater say for residents. We want to accelerate housing supply to
cooperatives because they help build stronger communities.
There are a number of financial advantages for tenants of cooperative housing. The
cooperative raises the finance and takes the financial risk. It also pools costs. By
acting like a building society, people can get preferential finance. The cooperative
will also be responsible for the initial sale of the homes, and then the re-sale, when
householders leave the scheme. Occupants have the option of staircasing (buying
additional shares in the property over time), as in an intermediate scheme – but
unlike a Government shared equity scheme, they can staircase down as well as up,
depending on their financial circumstances. Indeed, BMR is even more secure as
the property is below market value on entry and exit. This also ensures the value is
captured, together with the land, for future generations.
Mutual co-ownership of housing is part of mainstream housing policy in the United
States, Canada, Norway and Denmark. In Norway 14% of stock is managed by
cooperatives, but less than 1% of housing is cooperatively managed in the UK.²⁴
The 2007 Quirk Report, chaired by the Chief Executive of Lewisham Borough
Council, recommended to the Government accelerating the transfer of public assets
to community organisations, including CLTs.²⁵ We agree and would implement this
key recommendation.
Some of the funds raised through land release would be available to the cooperative
for start-up costs. In practice, cooperatives become self-financing after initial capital
start-up. As with existing cooperatives in the UK, the board of the cooperative would
be responsible for raising finance, and any potential bidders for funds would be
subject to a rigorous due diligence by the GLA, and expected to be registered with
the Financial Services Authority. This was one of the recommendations made by
Birmingham City Council following a feasibility study for how the cooperative-CLTs
model might operate in an inner-city environment.²⁶
The remaining funds raised would be invested into community projects. The real
benefit of cooperatives is the participation of the occupants, who become members,
and the ability to create sustainable neighbourhoods, delivering value for money and
reducing anti-social behaviour.
### Investing The Regional Housing Pot
Cooperatives will be able to access social housing grants to build affordable units, as
currently happens. This would require no new allocation of funds within the Regional
²⁴ Submission by the UK Cooperative Council to the Cooperative Commission, May 2000.
²⁵ Department for Communities and Local Government, Quirk Report: Making assets work, May 2007.
²⁶ Confederation of Cooperative Housing, Stock Transfer – the community gateway model, 2002.
Housing Pot 2008-11. The £3.97 billion grant²⁷ for London is £130 million higher than the GLA expected when it budgeted the delivery of 50,000 new affordable homes.²⁸ Ken Livingstone has simply added the surplus to his original costing, without specifying where or how it will be spent.²⁹ Under our proposal, we would match the original costing to deliver 50,000 affordable homes by 2011, with the £130 million surplus being made available to cooperatives. ‘FirstSteps’ is another form of affordable housing so will qualify for housing grant. Cooperatives will also have the freedom to bid for funds from the private sector.
This use of the Regional Housing Pot is, potentially, able to offer good value for taxpayers’ money. In the largest cooperative in the United States, Burlington CLT, the public subsidies invested in making the homes affordable not only remained in the houses at resale, but also increased in value, from $1,525,148 to $2,099,590.³⁰
To ensure the accelerated delivery of this new housing, we will use the new powers under the GLA Act 2007 to allow the Mayor to directly negotiate planning applications with developers.
## Building Strong Communities
CLTs and cooperatives will help us build a better London.³¹ There is understandable concern that new housing built in London does not create the problem estates of tomorrow, but we believe the way to build strong communities is to trust local people to shape their own environment. The clearest demonstration of trust is through the CLT-cooperative initiative, where members are able to exercise control over their rents and service charges, ensuring value for money and directing surpluses to improving their housing environment. It is clear that CLTs and greater community engagement reduce crime, the fear of crime, and anti-social behaviour.
For example, the Avedore Stationsby estate in Denmark has been transformed from a problem estate in the 1970s to a thriving place which now has the lowest crime rate in Greater Copenhagen.³² In the UK, a Government investigation found a housing estate run by tenants in Birmingham was one of only two places in the city where fear of crime had dropped.³³ It also found that community management in a
1. Department for Communities and Local Government, press release on 2008-11 regional housing pot allocations, 12 December 2007.
2. Table 4: Regional Housing Pot 2008-2011, GLA Draft Housing Strategy 2007, page 156.
3. Letter to the Chair of London Assembly from the Mayor of London, 18 December 2007.
4. Burlington CLT, Permanently Affordable Home Ownership, May 2003.
5. Cooperatives are cost-effective, and produce better results for residents. An evaluation by PriceWaterHouse Coopers demonstrated that tenant management organisations are able to produce significant and worthwhile benefit and superior value for money. In 2006, Oxford Brookes University found that tenant management organisations (or TMO, another form of cooperative) in the UK were equal or surpassed the top 25% of local authorities in England in terms of repairs, lettings, rent collection and tenant participation. It concluded that improvements in the area’s appearance and to the quality of life of residents were some of the main achievements creditable to the TMO. DCLG/Oxford Brookes University, 174: Tenant Management: evidence of TMOs in England, May 2006.
6. Report of the Policy Action Team 5 on housing management, Cabinet Office, 2006.
7. Department for Communities and Local Government, Strong and Prosperous Communities, page 40.
neighbourhood in Newcastle had led to crime falling by 45% in the first six months of
2006 compared to the same time period in 2003.34
We firmly believe therefore that creating a network of CLTs across London is not
only the most creative and transparent use of public assets owned by the GLA. It is
also the clearest example yet of devolving planning power to communities, and is
one of the best routes to creating sustainable neighbourhoods, delivering value for
money and reducing anti-social behaviour.
## Improving Access To The Open Market
We would expect homeowners in London benefiting from the BMR scheme to
subsequently purchase on the open market. This is achievable. Within six months
of re-selling and leaving the Burlington CLT, 74% of former CLT homeowners were
able to purchase their next home on the open market because the equity in their
home increased.35
## Extending The ‘FirstSteps’ Scheme
We will ask the Audit Commission to undertake a full appraisal of the ‘FirstSteps
Housing Scheme’ to prove its effectiveness within the first term of our administration.
With that evidence, we will encourage the release of other non-essential Brownfield
land suitable for residential development held by other public bodies in London to the
‘FirstSteps’ scheme. The London Development Agency would be in a strong
position to help facilitate the transfer of this land, having gained experience on the
Olympic development.36
## Empty GLA Properties
It is unacceptable that, in spite of waiting lists increasing by 68%, houses owned by
the GLA estate are empty. TfL own around 79 units on the North Circular Road,
N11, which are empty and have become havens of crime and anti-social
behaviour.37 This is a missed opportunity at a time of great need.
We will work to get homes like these occupied, even if on a short-term basis, at a
‘FirstSteps’ rate.
34 Ibid, page 38.
35 The affordability of the homes improved over time, with an average home affordable to a household earning 62% of Area
Median Income (AMI) on the initial sale becoming affordable to those earning 57% of AMI on resale. This allows the wealth to
be shared between the CLT, and help people build wealth themselves through a return on their initial investment.
36English Partnership holds a list of surplus public land within Greater London. Details for 2007 shows that most is held by the
British Railways Board and the Ministry of Defence also owns a sizeable proportion of land at Hillingdon.
37 In the 1970s land was compulsorily purchased to widen the road, but this never happened. Ownership has now transferred
from the Department of Transport to TfL. TfL estimates that it owns approximately 265 units, and has talked of disposing of the
land and the units not required by the agency (TfL has estimated that it would retain only 89 units). See: Question No.
330/2008, MQTs, 20 February 2008 and http://www.emptyhomes.com/documents/publications/case/prod_northcircnov06.pdf
The agencies of the GLA already own a large number of properties. The LDA is freeholder for more than 44 hectares of land that is currently used for housing, and in total about 3,337 residential homes.38 TfL owns 526 residential units in all, most of which are in Enfield, where 359 units are located.39 The MPA owns 750 houses across London, including 119 in Westminster, 59 in Ealing and 47 in Greenwich.40 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) owns about 25 homes.41
We will undertake a full audit of other properties held under the GLA estate, and make empty units available to housing trusts as ‘FirstSteps’ properties.
## Delivering 50,000 Affordable Homes
London has a serious problem with housing supply. Londoners are twice as likely than the rest of Britain’s population to live in ‘overcrowded’ accommodation,42 and they are almost twice as likely to need to share accommodation.43 These pressures are set to increase with London’s population expected to rise from 7.5 million in 2006 to 8.7 million in 2026.44
There is no question that we need more housing. We will meet this challenge with a commitment to build 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011.
London will fail to fulfil this ambition under the current target culture that has failed to deliver the required number of affordable homes, which is why we will take a new approach to creating more homes.
## Ending The Hypocrisy
The approach of setting an arbitrary 50% housing target has comprehensively failed London; the proportion of affordable housing has dropped from 40-45% between 1997-2001 to just 34% of completions last year.45
Ken Livingstone has repeatedly attacked borough councils that do not manage to meet his 50% target, ‘naming and shaming’ Wandsworth and Hammersmith and Fulham for missing their targets.46 He has specifically attacked Westminster Council, accusing it of failing to do enough in its planning to meet its affordable housing
38 In Newham it owns a total of at least 24 hectares, including Royal Victoria Dock (Excel - Capital East Phase 1) Newham and Royal Victoria Dock (Excel - Westgate) Newham; Furlong Development (Albert Basin) Newham 8 hectares; and Britannia Village Newham 16 hectares. In Greenwich it owns Royal Arsenal Greenwich consisting of 20 hectares. Question Nos. 443 and 444/2008, MQTs, 20 February 2008.
39 Question No. 444/2008, MQTs, 20 February 2008.
40 Question No. 444/2008, MQTs, 20 February 2008.
41 Question No. 444/2008, MQTs, 20 February 2008.
42 DCLG, Table 806, Households: overcrowding and under-occupation: by region and tenure by household size. The London average is 6.6% compared with 2.5% nationally.
43 Londoners tend to be the least happy people in the Britain when it comes to their housing situation. Only 34% of Londoners report themselves “Very Satisfied” against a national average of 48% (see ONS, Focus on London, August 2007, Table 1.11, p. 14.) They are almost twice as likely as the national average to be “Very Dissatisfied” and a Londoner is around thirteen times unhappier than a Scot about their housing (see ONS, Regional Trends, Table H2: Data drawn from Survey of English Housing, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Scottish Household Survey, Scottish Executive. The figure for London is 6.1% against 0.5% for Scotland.)
44 GLA Draft Housing Strategy 2007, page 23.
45 GLA Planning and Spatial Development Committee, Unintended Outcomes, June 2007, Para 2.8.
46 Evening Standard, 12th November 2007.
target, asserting that it “illustrates a reluctance to enforce general conformity with the
London Plan, especially with regard to affordable housing targets.”47 He has even
claimed that “it would be a disaster at this point to adopt the policy of reducing the
pressure for affordable new homes.”48
Yet one reason why proportionally less affordable housing is now being built is Ken
Livingstone’s hypocrisy when approving planning applications. For instance, TfL
submitted a major development for planning permission, approved by the incumbent
Mayor, at Victoria Station Redevelopment: 811 units, none affordable.49
Ken Livingstone is also involved in these two developments:
• Stratford City: 5,000 homes, 30% affordable.50
• London Development Agency proposals for 180 houses and flats to be built in
Crystal Palace Park, none affordable.51
In addition, he has given planning permission for a number of major developments
which do not meet his 50% target:
• Coin Street Builders’ proposals for a skyscraper with 282 flats, none affordable.52
• 31 - 39 Millharbour, Tower Hamlets: 512 homes, 30% affordable.53
• 1 Millharbour, Tower Hamlets: 790 homes, 23% affordable.54
• 71 Carmen Street, Tower Hamlets: 154 homes, 35% affordable.55
• Crown Wharf, Newham: 767 homes, 35% affordable.56
• Newington Industrial Estate, Southwark: 178 homes, 27% affordable.57
• Grahame Park Estate, Barnet: 2,977 homes, 36% affordable.58
• Copland Community School, Wembley, Brent: 451 homes, 28% affordable.59
• 397 - 411 Westferry Road, Tower Hamlets: 190 homes, 33% affordable.60
• 22 Marsh Wall, Tower Hamlets: 691 homes, 23% affordable.61
• Three Quays, Lower Thames Street, City: 64 homes, 25% affordable.62
• West Hendon Estate Regeneration, Barnet: 2,171 homes, 31% affordable.63
• Wallis House, North Brentford Quarter, Hounslow: 755 dwellings, 32%
affordable.64
47 Mayor of London, Review of GLA Powers on Planning, 2007.
48 Morning Star, Saturday 1 December, 2007.
49 GLA Planning Decision, Victoria Transport Interchange, 12 November 2007.
50 GLA Planning Decision, Zone One Stratford City, 1 August 2006.
51 LDA, Crystal Palace Park – Statement SCI, 18 October 2007.
52 English Heritage, A Towering Mistake for the London Skyline, 2007.
53 GLA Planning Decision, 3-39 Millharbour, Isle of Dogs, 25 January 2005.
54 GLA Planning Decision, 4 Mastmaker Place and 1 Millharbour, 30 August 2006.
55 GLA Planning Decision, 71 Carmen Street, 25 August 2005.
56 GLA Planning Decision, Crown Wharf, 9 February 2005.
57 GLA Planning Decision, Newington Industrial Estate, 8 June 2005.
58 GLA Planning Decision, Grahame Park Estate, Colindale, 23 June 2004.
59 GLA Planning Decision, Copland Community School, Wembley, 11 May 2005.
60 GLA Planning Decision, 397-411 Westferry Road, 17 October 2006.
61 GLA Planning Decision, Arrowhead Quay, Marsh Wall, 25 May 2007.
62 Tower Hamlet Borough Council, Local Area Partnership Update, November 2004.
63 GLA Planning Decision, West Hendon Estate Regeneration, 9 February 2006.
64 GLA Planning Decision, Wallace House, 2006.
## Ending The Target Culture
Experience shows that when a borough council moves away from the percentage target, they can end up building more affordable units. According to the latest Annual Monitoring Report for the London Plan, from 2005/6 to 2006/7, Hounslow decreased the proportion of build given to affordable housing from 63% to 44%, but increased the number of affordable homes built from 303 to 635 units.65 Islington decreased the proportion of build given to affordable housing from 67% to 30%, but increased the number of affordable homes built from 491 to 534 units.66 Bexley decreased the proportion of build given to affordable housing from 68% to 48%, but increased the number of affordable homes from 58 to 115 units.67
Furthermore, when some boroughs moved towards Ken Livingstone’s target they ended up building fewer affordable homes. For example, between 2005/6 to 2006/7, Richmond upon Thames increased the proportion of build given to affordable housing from 10% to 14%, but ended up building fewer homes from 91 to 32 units.68 Kensington and Chelsea increased the proportion of build given to affordable homes from 31% to 39%, but ended up building fewer homes from 65 to 64 units.69 Hillingdon met the same proportion of affordable homes in each year, 24%, but ended up building fewer homes from 118 to 46 units last year.70
## Lost Development Land
This approach is also leading to land being underdeveloped. Since February 2008, the 50% target has applied to developments of ten units rather than developments of 15 units – the GLA estimates that 11,000 sites are of this size.
The result is that developers are building below unit thresholds. Indeed, when Tower Hamlets trialled the threshold reduction to nine units there was a dramatic decrease in the number of planning applications for 14-unit developments – from ten in 2005 to just one last year.71 Ken Livingstone’s threshold change could conceivably lead to developers applying to build nine units instead of 14 on many sites, none of which would be affordable.
We will not impose a London-wide target for the minimum size of a development on which borough councils must negotiate affordable housing – instead we will allow them the freedom to negotiate the number of affordable homes based on a case-by-case basis.
65 Table 16, Affordable Housing Out-turn, GLA Monitoring Report Report, February 2008.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 CB Richard Ellis, Affordable housing in London, 12 December 2007.
## Working With Borough Councils
It is clear from London’s continuing housing crisis that the target regime has distorted priorities and that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate.
Under our administration, the bullying of borough councils will stop, and there will be no imposition of the 50% target. In the original analysis undertaken to decide on affordable housing targets, it was thought that a universal 50% target for housing would be unrealistic. The 2001 Spatial Development Strategy stated:
“The analysis undertaken for this report suggests that 50% affordable housing provision is possible in nearly two thirds of the London boroughs, but there are 12 boroughs where 50% affordable housing provision is not a realistic option and a 35% affordable housing target would be more readily achievable... Affordable housing policy adopted in the SDS should have regard to the differences between boroughs and allow for local interpretation.” 72
While Ken Livingstone has ignored this advice, we will listen and reform the capital’s planning system to allow for the differing circumstances within different London boroughs.
We will move to a unit-based agreement with the borough councils so that rather than insisting that 50% of each major development be affordable housing, we agree with each council the number of affordable homes that need to be delivered within that borough each year.
We will expect at least 16,667 affordable homes to be built in London every year from 2008 to 2011 to deliver 50,000 new affordable homes in that time, and will amend the London Plan to reflect this.
We will negotiate a higher unit target with those boroughs with the longest waiting lists.
We believe it is pragmatic to aim resources where need is greatest. We will allow borough councils complete freedom over how they deliver on the unit agreement.
We expect Local Planning Agreements submitted to the Mayor for approval to include provisions for ensuring social mix by providing a range of units on site, in order to prevent the creation of problem estates.
Our fresh approach will deliver 50,000 new affordable homes in London without the unnecessary bureaucracy associated with the current regime.
72 GLA, Affordable Housing in London, Spatial Development Strategy, Technical Report One, July 2001, p. vi and vii.
## Homes People Want To Live In
We believe a successful affordable housing policy is not just about the amount of units secured, it is also about meeting the particular property needs of an area; whether larger homes to get families off waiting lists or smaller units for couples. To date, the Mayor has failed to take action on the chronic shortage of some types of housing in London.
According to the latest available data, London has a shortage of 30,000 three and four bedroom affordable homes,^73 and there is a surplus of some 8,300 one bedroom affordable homes.^74 This suggests that in order to meet Ken Livingstone’s targets, developers are building smaller affordable units, which are cheaper to build but clearly less in demand than family-sized homes.
The result is chronic overcrowding. One in ten Londoners are living in overcrowded conditions, far higher than the national average.^75 The charity Shelter has found that three quarters of respondents blamed the short supply of large affordable properties for their overcrowded conditions.^76
We will amend the London Plan to encourage boroughs to build more family homes to tackle the shortage. This will be achieved by requiring borough planning departments to include policies that pay regard to the size and social mix of developments, based on their housing needs assessments to calculate the required mix of units in their area, and to set out these requirements in their Local Development Frameworks.
## Section 106 Agreements
In 2005/6, 53% of all new affordable homes in the capital were provided through section 106 agreements.^77 These are planning obligations negotiated with developers, whereby they must provide an agreed benefit to the community in order to secure permission to build.
In total, section 106 is expected to raise £1 billion for London borough councils in direct financial payments over the next ten years.^78 Sheffield University estimates that in 2003/4 direct benefits worth £112 million were delivered in the capital.^79 London Councils estimate that in the following financial year, planning obligations raised total benefits worth at least £230 million in 2005/06.^80
[^73]: GLA Greater London Housing Requirements Study, December 2004.
[^74]: Ibid.
[^75]: Housing Federation, Home Truths: London, 2007.
[^76]: Shelter, Full House?, 2005
[^77]: Housing Federation, Home Truths: London, 2007.
[^78]: London Assembly, Who gains? The operation of section 106 planning agreements in London, March 2008, page 9.
[^79]: Valuing planning obligations in England, DCLG, 31 May 2006.
[^80]: The London Councils estimate was based on information received from 21 boroughs. http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=21857&cat=935
However, we are concerned that only thirteen of London’s 32 borough councils have adopted any dedicated statement on their section 106 policy.81 Four boroughs have not even issued guidance.82 This adds to confusion for developers, and can lead to missed opportunities by boroughs, unable to negotiate full public value through section 106. The London Assembly found that over the last two years cash benefits secured by the boroughs through section 106 ranged between £155,000 to £35 million.83
We want all borough councils to produce guidance on how section 106 will be implemented, to be published with their Local Development Plan.
There is concern that when the powers for negotiating planning applications of strategic importance to London are changed under the GLA Act 2007, the Mayor will be able to redistribute section 106 cash from the local communities affected by developments to other parts of London. 73% of Registered Social Landlords expect the Mayor to become the ‘lead party’ for section 106 agreement on major projects.84
Under these circumstances, we will consult with local residents, in partnership with the relevant borough council(s), on the most valuable form to the local area that the section 106 agreement can take – whether that is investing in local open spaces, making improvements to transport links, or investing in education and health.85 The planning obligation secured will be invested in the local community, and not diverted to another part of London.
### Increasing Intermediate Housing
It is our ambition that any Londoner should be able to own their own home, regardless of their income.
Currently, within the 50% affordable housing target, there is a requirement for 70% to be social rented housing and 30% to be intermediate housing on each development.
Ken Livingstone has objected to Local Development Frameworks that do not adhere to the 70:30 split, resulting in fewer opportunities for key workers or those in low-income households to get onto the housing ladder. The pace of shared equity units coming onto the housing market is incredibly slow. In 2006/7, just 3 new shared equity homes were built in Hillingdon; 8 in Barnet; and 16 in Westminster.86
The report by the London Housing Board made clear that future demand for intermediate housing will increase in the capital, stating:
81 London Assembly, Who gains? The operation of section 106 agreements in London, March 2008, page 20.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid, page 9.
84 Ibid.
85 The London Assembly found that during 2007, section 106 was spent on transport and access improvements (29% of s106s), open spaces (24%), and education and health (21%). London Assembly, Who Gains? report, pages 19-20.
86 GLA, More low cost homes for London, The Londoner, January 2008.
“During 2006-08, a balance of nearer 50:50 is anticipated. This is partly as a result of the Government’s priority to assist key public sector workers, in order to strengthen recruitment and retention in London’s essential services... By 2008/09, the proportion of social rented to intermediate housing coming from all sources is forecast to be around 60:40.”87
The draft Regional Housing Strategy ignored this advice, and the GLA Act 2007 has now transferred the powers of the London Housing Board to the Mayor of London.
We believe borough councils should have the freedom to build more intermediate housing units.
We will increase the percentage of intermediate housing in London by a third, to allow more opportunities for low-income families and key sector workers to get on the housing ladder in the capital. We will listen to the evidence presented by the then London Housing Board by amending the London Plan and Housing Strategy to introduce a 60:40 split on each development.
It is estimated that 95,000 Londoners in social rented accommodation are of the appropriate age and income to enter into shared equity and staircase to eventually owning their own home.88
We would like to see the Government establish a one-stop shop to advise existing social tenants how they can benefit from shared equity schemes. By moving social tenants into shared equity, we not only help more people into home ownership, but release much-needed social housing for people on waiting lists.
### Tackling London’s Empty Homes Crisis
Under Ken Livingstone, the number of empty homes owned by public bodies, such as the GLA, has almost doubled since 2002.89 The number of empty homes owned by the borough councils is at its highest for six years, despite the transfer of housing stock to housing associations.90 There are at least 79 abandoned homes owned by TfL at the North Circular, N11.91
Empty homes blight neighbourhoods – they are also an absurdity when London desperately requires new housing. Housing waiting lists have increased by more than 68% under Ken Livingstone; in some boroughs, such as Barking and Dagenham, and Haringey, waiting lists have more than tripled.92 Nearly 61,000 households were living in temporary accommodation in the capital at the end of
87 London Housing Board, London Housing Strategy 2005-2016.
88 GLA, Draft Housing Strategy 2007.
89 In 2002 the number of public owned empty homes was 619. The latest figures show the number of public owned empty
homes in 2006 to be 999. Empty Homes Agency, Regional Statistics, 2002 to 2006.
90 In 2002 the number of local authority empty homes stood at 9,917. The latest figures for 2006 show an increase to 10,107.
Empty Homes Agency, Regional Statistics, 2002 to 2006.
91 The sad story of the creation of a slum in North London, Empty Homes Agency, 2006.
92 Department for Communities and Local Government, WPQ, Hansard, 13 November 2007, col. 116W.
2006, with close to 2,200 families in bed and breakfast.93 Over 21,000 households were accepted as homeless in London last year.94
We will make it a priority to return dormant homes to the housing stock to dramatically cut London’s long waiting lists.
## Regenerating Communities
The latest figures show that there are 84,205 homes left empty in the capital.95 Half of these are in the outer boroughs, and overall one third are empty for longer than six months.
Getting empty homes occupied will help increase housing stock and improve the local environment. Empty homes are havens for crime and anti-social behaviour – one in five residents said it reduced their enjoyment of the street, and a quarter of people say they would not buy next to an empty house.96 For that reason, house prices are a staggering 17% lower in areas with empty homes.97
Ken Livingstone’s target for reducing the number of unoccupied homes lacks ambition for London – his draft Regional Housing Strategy wants to see a reduction in the share of empty homes of just 0.2% by 2016.98
London needs new energy and fresh thinking to tackle its empty homes crisis. We will amend the Housing Strategy, outlining a programme to cut the number of empty dwellings to 1% by 2011.
## London-wide Audit
London needs a new comprehensive audit to map all of London’s empty homes, published with the next progress report on the London Plan. This audit approach works. The experience of other cities shows that listing empty buildings is the first step to regeneration. In 1997, the Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, launched the city’s Abandoned Buildings Survey – in the decade since, the number of abandoned residential properties has declined by 77%.99
At present, empty home numbers are based on Council Tax receipts. Although this is the single best source for measuring the number of empty homes within a borough, there are ongoing concerns that it is producing inaccuracies in the data; for example, private owners failing to register their home for Council Tax purposes.
London is in a good position to conduct a new audit. It is already divided into five sub-regions, each with an appointed Empty Properties Officer, operating in each of
93 Housing Federation, Home Truths, 2007, page 8.
94 Ibid.
95 Empty Homes Agency, London Totals 2006.
96 Halifax, One in four affected by empty homes, 10 December 2007.
97 Ibid.
98 GLA Draft Housing Strategy 2007, page 39.
99 Speech by Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, Rehabilitating vacant buildings, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, 19 November 2007.
the boroughs. The borough-by-borough audit would itemise who owns the property
(for example, a borough council, housing association, public body, or private owner),
how long it has been empty for, and how many properties have been reoccupied
during the previous twelve months. This grid would be published as part of the next
Annual Monitoring Report for the London Plan. In particular, the London audit would
include for the first time a list of ‘hidden homes’ above tube stations and industrial
property on the GLA estate.
## Meeting Regeneration Costs
We also need to get empty properties brought up to the Government’s ‘Decent
Homes’ standard and use them to help people off housing waiting lists.
Around eight out of ten of London’s empty homes are owned privately, which is
where we need to focus our resources.100 In the draft Housing Strategy, the funding
stream (which includes funds for empty home renovation) has been allocated just
9% of the Regional Housing Pot 2008-11.101 This funding stream is spread across
four programmes, one of which is related to improving the conditions of empty
private homes to get them reoccupied. It is clear the empty homes programme is
losing out – it is projected in 2008/9, for example, to receive just one tenth of the
funding stream, the lowest of the four programmes.102
During 2006-08, £15 million has been allocated to regenerating empty homes.103
This is divided fairly equally between the five sub-regions. For example, during
2006-8, the West London sub-region received £3 million104 and the North London
sub-region £3.375 million.105 The sub-regions then allocate this funding between the
boroughs and set a target for the number of empty homes to be brought back into
use across the sub-region. The targets are relatively low. Within the West London
sub-region, for example, only 186 homes were targeted last year.106 Although this
target was slightly exceeded, it tackled only a fraction of the overall problem. At the
start of the year, the six boroughs that constitute the West London sub-region had a
total of 15,241 empty homes, 12,762 owned privately.107
We will increase substantially the amount of funding available to bring empty homes
back into occupancy, by providing a further £60 million over 2008-11, on the
condition the homes are then let to someone in social housing need. Our approach
also recognises the costs involved in bringing an empty home back into use.
Estimates of the costs differ widely, although some are as high as £28,788.108
100 In 2006, 69,485 homes were owned privately out of the 84,205 total empty stock. Empty Homes Agency, Regional
Statistics, 2006.
101 Draft Housing Strategy 2007, page 156.
102 Draft Regional Housing Strategy, page 162.
103 London Councils Housing Forum, Financial Update, 5 December 2007.
104 London Empty Homes Agency annual meeting minutes, 23 February 2007.
105 North London sub region empty homes initiative, 2007.
106 London Empty Homes Agency annual meeting minutes, 23 February 2007.
107 Empty Homes Agency, Regional Statistics, 2006.
108 Halifax, One in four affected by empty homes, 10 December 2007.
This fund is four times that budgeted for by Ken Livingstone. This will be met through the Regional Housing Pot for 2008-11. The Government Office for London has advised that £60 million less will be required for the ‘Decent Homes’ programme. Ken Livingstone agreed to reallocate this money to the main programme for affordable homes, already budgeted by the GLA. 109 Instead, we would allocate the £60 million to the five London sub-regions to kick-start a new drive towards renovating empty homes in their boroughs, reoccupying them with tenants on social housing waiting lists.
## Cutting Waiting Lists
The new funding will be available to the Empty Homes Grant Scheme, allocated by the Empty Homes Officers and operated at borough council level. This allows private owners to bid for funds to renovate their empty homes.
In return, most of London’s councils specify that the completed unit is then let to someone on the housing waiting list. For example, Barnet requires the homes to be let through a housing association for at least five years; Islington and Barking and Dagenham allocate homes to key sector workers for three years. 110 We would require the same approach for new homes benefiting from the increase from the Regional Housing Pot.
This measure will make a real difference to cutting borough waiting lists. There is correlation between a high number of empty homes within a borough, and long housing waiting lists. 111
## Tackling Long-term Empty Homes
To ensure value for money, we will require this money to be targeted in the first instance to long-term empty homes. There are ten boroughs in London with privately-owned homes that have been empty for longer than six months, including 2,040 homes that are dormant in Croydon; 1,611 in Waltham Forest; and 1,511 in Brent. 112
We will ensure the new funding is targeted at bringing homes that have been empty in the first instance for longer than twelve months, and then six months, back into occupancy with tenants currently on social housing waiting lists.
109 The Draft Housing Strategy allocated £500 million to the Decent Homes programme. In a letter to the Chair of the London Assembly on 18 December 2007, Ken Livingstone outlined how the Government Office of London had advised the GLA that only £440 million would be required. Ken Livingstone notified the Assembly in the same letter that the surplus would be allocated to the main programme.
110 Empty Homes Agency, How Grants Work, 2007.
111 For waiting lists by borough see Department for Communities and Local Government, WPQ, Hansard, 13 November 2007, col. 116W.
112 The other are Haringey – 1,275; Kensington and Chelsea – 1,109; Lewisham – 1,300; Westminster – 1,598; Ealing – 1,749; Greenwich – 1,579; Redbridge – 1,310. Empty Homes Agency, Regional Statistics, 2006.
## Ending Empty Home Tax Rebates
Homeowners are at present exempt from Council Tax for the first year a property is empty and are given up to a 50% discount thereafter.113 Local authorities are able to abolish the exemption and the discount – but it is estimated that only about half of London’s boroughs have used the powers granted to them in the Local Government Act 2003 to do so.114 We will call on London councils to abolish the Council Tax discount after the first year of dormancy on privately-owned, long-term empty homes, to encourage their return to the housing stock.
## Returning The Mayor’s Precept
The number of empty properties owned by public bodies has almost doubled under Ken Livingstone. Two boroughs in London, Lambeth and Southwark, each own over 1,000 empty homes.115
We intend to incentivise the borough councils by returning the Mayor’s Council Tax precept to boroughs in special circumstances.
London boroughs sometimes remove homes they own from the housing stock, and designate them for a different use. In circumstances where the house is definitely being permanently removed from the housing stock, then rather than the home being empty (possibly for a long period of time) we will provide a financial incentive to the borough councils to hand the home to a specialist short life housing provider on a temporary basis.
Short life housing provides accommodation to people who are stuck in unsuitable housing, frequently bed and breakfasts. Given that close to 2,200 families are housed in bed and breakfast accommodation in London, encouraging short life housing will make a real difference to the quality of life of those Londoners as a step towards permanent housing.116
To encourage borough councils to do this, we will return the Mayor’s precept to them.117 According to Brent Community Housing, 75% of their short life housing tenants are economically active, meaning that they are very likely to pay some level of Council Tax. This means borough councils will benefit from every penny of the Council Tax paid on the property, including the Mayor’s share.
We are also encouraged by short life providers supplying accommodation to key sector workers, including hospital cleaners and porters, who all provide essential public services. Indeed, in Hammersmith and Fulham, the key worker short life scheme only accepts referrals from the health authority, the social services, or the
113 Department for Communities and Local Government, A Guide to Your Council Tax Bill, 2007.
114 GLA Draft Housing Strategy 2007, page 35.
115 Empty Homes Agency, Regional Statistics, 2006.
116 Housing Federation, Home Truths, 2007, page 8.
117 The monthly return of the precept will last for the length of the first occupancy.
prison service.118 The precept return will not apply to local authority homes transferred to Registered Social Landlords.
## Finding ‘Hidden Homes’
We also welcome the work some boroughs are undertaking on ‘hidden homes’ within their boundaries. ‘Hidden homes’ often convert existing structures, such as an underground car park, or find places to build new homes, such as above a Tube station.
For example, in 2003 Wandsworth Borough Council initiated a comprehensive search to renovate ‘hidden homes’ in the borough. This has so far led to 130 buildings being reoccupied.119
Wandsworth believes there are 10,000 ‘hidden homes’ in London.120 This is in addition to empty homes.
Ken Livingstone’s attitude towards ‘hidden homes’ schemes is out of touch. In September 2007, he condemned Wandsworth Borough Council’s initiative as follows: “the name ‘Hidden Homes’ says it all – it seems like Wandsworth is determined to treat these social tenants as second class citizens and hide them away from the rest of the world.”121
We would encourage other boroughs to undertake an assessment to find ‘hidden homes’, and as part of the London-wide audit the GLA will identify potential ‘hidden homes’ on its estate above tube stations and commercial property.
## Protecting Private Tenants
There are estimated to be 566,000 private sector tenants in London – approximately one in five of the national total.122 This means over 139,000 more people are renting today compared to when Ken Livingstone first came to office, and on current trends a further 212,000 people will be in the private rented sector by 2012.123
The cost of renting in London has increased dramatically. The average monthly rent in London is estimated at £843, increasing by 33% since 2000.124 This is significantly higher than the rest of England. Not surprisingly, rents vary enormously between boroughs. The last snapshot survey of London rental costs by borough was conducted in 2005. It found that living in central London was about a quarter more
118 Empty Homes Agency, Guide to Short Life Housing, 2007.
119 Wandsworth Borough Council, Hidden Homes Strategy, 2007.
120 Wandsworth Borough Council, Hidden Homes Strategy, 2007.
121 GLA, Press release: Wandsworth ‘Hidden Homes’ scheme increases segregation, 14 September 2007.
122 Table S135, Tenure by Government Office Region, 2006.
123 Ibid, 2000. The private sector rental market is estimated to grow by around 2% per annum.
124 Table 743: Rents, letting and tenancies: mean rent of free market private tenancies: by region, 1995-2007, Department for Communities and Local Government.
expensive than outer London, with Westminster the most expensive borough in which to live.125
This means the average upfront payment to rent in London is £1686, half of which represents the deposit. Given that 74% of people in the private rented sector earn less than £40,000 gross, and the overwhelming majority (61%) less than £30,000 gross, this represents around one month’s net salary for most private tenants in London.126
We recognise the importance of the buy-to-let sector in London. Unlike some other countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, fixing rent levels would be wrong in the UK. However, we do believe there is value in an online borough-by-borough guide, broken down by number of bedrooms, to ensure tenants feel confident that they are getting value for money. In particular, this will help students, as many of the 120,905 students at London’s universities will rent in the private sector during their university course.127
### Stopping Delayed Deposits
Evidence suggests that one in three private tenants will not get their full deposit back, and worse still, half will not get any money returned to them.128 One in ten tenants said that the landlord simply gave no reason.129
Landlords are now obliged to sign up to a Tenancy Deposit Protection scheme. None of these offer a guaranteed dispute resolution period if the landlord and tenant cannot agree on how much of the deposit should be returned. Given that most tenants enter another tenancy agreement when they move, if the deposit is not returned within the agreement notice period, they will end up with almost one month’s wages in limbo with landlords.130
We will investigate introducing a new Tenancy Deposit Scheme for London on rent paid up to £25,000 per annum, offering a guaranteed alternative dispute resolution service within four weeks, which represents the minimum notice period on most tenancy agreements. The scheme will also award interest to tenants. Similar schemes are self-financing based on the interest earned.
125 GLA Private rents bulletin, 2005.
126 This is based on all assured tenancies. Table S521, Gross annual income of tenancy group by type of letting, 2005/6, Department for Communities and Local Government.
127 London: High Education Statistics 2007.
128 Table S565, Whether deposit returned, 2005/6, Department for Communities and Local Government.
129 Table S566, Reasons for and tenant views of non-return of deposit, 2005/6, Department for Communities and Local Government. 49% of tenants believe their deposit should have been returned, and 11% of tenants were given no reason by the landlord when their deposit was withheld.
130 Over half of tenancies (54%) last less than three years, with 27% lasting fewer than 12 months. Given that by far the majority of existing tenants have moved within the previous year (86%), this strongly suggests that, as we would expect, tenants in the private sector undertake a number of contracts with landlords before buying a home or moving to another type of accommodation, reinforcing the idea Londoners can have a significant amount of their income held in deposit.
## Thames Gateway
The Government plans to build 160,000 houses and create 225,000 jobs¹³¹ in the Thames Gateway region of East London by 2016, bringing in 350,000 new residents and boosting the area's population by 22%.¹³² It could add as much as £12 billion a year to the UK's economy.¹³³
Delivering on the Thames Gateway will be one of the Mayor of London’s top priorities. We are concerned that the Public Accounts Committee revealed in November 2007 that despite already spending £673m on the project since 2003, the Department for Communities and Local Government had failed to put in place basic arrangements for controlling the project - including a budget. It said the Department’s handling of the project had been ‘weak’.¹³⁴
Furthermore, the National Audit Office said in May 2007 that although 24,000 homes were built between 2001 and 2005, the rate of increase has been slower than the rest of Southern England and will need to double if the target of 160,000 homes is to be met. It said the DCLG needed to demonstrate ‘stronger leadership’.¹³⁵
The Thames Gateway Strategy Partnership, set up in 2000 and modified in 2005 to coordinate between central and local government, is still failing to coordinate effectively. The Public Accounts Committee stated that “there is a risk of uncoordinated delivery across the Thames Gateway, inefficiencies in procurement, and a lack of capacity in some areas.”¹³⁶ The complex partnership networks result in unclear delivery chains for individual projects. Projects have multiple lines of reporting and accountability. For instance, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was provided with more than £4 million for the new visitor centre at Rainham Marshes from four separate public bodies: the East of England Development Agency, Greengrid South Essex, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation.¹³⁷
We are concerned that under the London Plan’s new division of sub-regions, the Thames Gateway and the Olympic Park are divided unhelpfully. We will encourage cooperation between boroughs in the area by amending the London Plan to allow for flexibility around the sub-regions involved.
¹³¹ Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Speech at the Thames Gateway Conference, 29 November 2007.
¹³² House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations, October 2007, paragraph 22.
¹³³ House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations, October 2007, Summary.
¹³⁴ House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations, October 2007, Recommendation 1, page 5.
¹³⁵ National Audit Office Press Notice, 23 May 2007.
¹³⁶ House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations, October 2007, Recommendation 1, paragraphs 8 and 9.
¹³⁷ House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations, October 2007, Recommendation 1, paragraph 11.
## Building For Life
Design quality must be central to London’s housing strategy. According to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 84% of new housing in London was considered either ‘poor’ or ‘average’.138
CABE recommended changes to “both the design process to bring forward sound proposals and the planning regime to intervene and improve submitted proposals.”139
Londoners should not have to settle for mediocre housing. We want building quality to be central to the Housing Strategy, to be applied to the character of new developments, roads and parking. There is evidence that since the introduction of Planning Policy Supplement 3, developers are failing to take a consistent approach to design solutions.
We also believe it is important to involve Registered Social Landlords and housing associations in the design of new affordable housing. There is evidence that this approach works, such as the superior design quality of Time House at Clapham Junction, which will be comprised of 36 intermediate units, jointly designed by the developer, Berkeley First, and the Thames Valley Housing Association.140 In the Housing Strategy we will call for the involvement of RSLs in the design of affordable housing units.
138 CABE, Housing Audit: assessing the design quality of new homes, October 2004, page 21.
139 Ibid.
140 Affordable Housing: new social butterflies, The Independent, 27 February 2008.
## 2. Designing Developments To Combat Crime
* I will make designing out crime a key priority in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing Strategy to prevent creating poor-quality housing where crime flourishes.
Few things affect people’s quality of life more than crime and the fear of crime. Violent crime and anti-social behaviour are wrecking lives and undermining communities in London.
The Mayor, borough councils, planners, and house builders all have a role to play in designing out crime and making our communities safer and stronger.
Most local authorities have sought to cut crime on housing estates by following the principles outlined in Secured By Design, a national scheme of the Association of Chief Police Officers. This includes creating defensible space; organising the built environment so that anti-social behaviour is less likely to be ignored; creating space that generalises a sense of ownership, such as front gardens, rather than space which promotes anonymity; and promoting natural surveillance from residents’ houses.
Houses that meet ACPO Secured By Design (SBD) standards experience a quarter less crime than non-SBD houses, and residents’ fear of crime is lower.141
For instance, a study by Bedfordshire Police reported crime and disorder on a 4,500-home development incorporating Secured By Design principles will average approximately 680 incidents a year. The same number of homes in an estate incorporating the Government’s planning principles will result in 4,080 crime and disorder incidents a year, six times as many as on a Secured By Design development.142
The Association of Chief Police Officers has written that:
> “*Natural surveillance is a cornerstone in the achievement of community safety. Where the likelihood of being seen is low, the risks perceived by potential offenders are also low and the likelihood of crimes being committed will be higher. Ensuring that spaces around buildings, footpath routes, open spaces and parking areas in residential developments are open to view from adjoining occupied properties and/or well-trafficked routes can assist in discouraging criminal activity, by increasing the risk of detection, reducing opportunities for crime and making potential offenders feel more vulnerable. The greater the level of use of public spaces by responsible citizens, the greater will be the degree of natural surveillance.*”143
141 Home Office press release, Design Alliance: fighting crime from the drawing board, 14 August 2007.
142 Bedfordshire Police, The Cost of Policing New Urbanism, April 2003, page 3.
143 Association of Chief Police Officers, Secured By Design Principles report, 3.1.
There are several more examples of the concept working around England and Wales:
### *Royds, Bradford*
In 1995, the Royds area was one of the worst in the UK for house burglaries, with a divisional average of 138 forced entries per 1,000 households. Working with local police and residents, architects implemented Secured By Design principles relating to layout, defensible space, access opportunities and natural surveillance.144 Between 1998 and 2003, there were no forced-entry burglaries in Royds and there was a 69% reduction in dwelling burglary across the whole area.145
### *Kent*
Renewal.net (part of the Government's National Strategy Action Plan for neighbourhood renewal) has reported that introducing Secured By Design principles into the Swanley Estate in Kent led to an immediate increase in residents' sense of privacy and security. This was matched by a 92% reduction in burglary, an 86% reduction in criminal damage, an 85% reduction in theft from vehicles, and a 64% reduction in offences involving violence.146
### *West Yorkshire*
After two housing estates in West Yorkshire were refurbished to Secured By Design standards, crime on the estates fell by 67% and 54% respectively, between April 1999 and March 2000. For incidents of theft of a motor vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle and taking without consent, there were 42% fewer offences following the refurbishment.147
### *Gwent*
An analysis of recorded crime data on 9,173 housing association properties in Gwent between 1996 and 1998 found that: “While the non-SBD homes suffered an annual burglary rate per thousand homes of 15.9, the SBD sample was 6.9.” There were 5.1 vehicle thefts per thousand households for non-SBD properties, but just 1.9 per thousand households for SBD properties.148
Despite this evidence, Ken Livingstone is failing to prioritise the principles of designing out crime. He mentions the principle only once in his statutory Draft Housing Strategy.
I will make designing out crime a key priority in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing Strategy to prevent creating poor-quality housing where crime flourishes.
144 Royds Community Association, Housing by Royds Community Association, 23 March 2006.
145 Home Office/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention, 2004, page 59.
146 Renewal.net Solving the Problem, Secured By Design, page 4.
147 Brown J., Designing out crime – Gwent, a case study, Secured By Design housing within West Yorkshire, September 2000.
148 Brown J., Designing out crime – Gwent, a case study, 24 March 2006.
## 3. Protecting Green Spaces And Historic Views
I will:
* Protect ten historic views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Palace of Westminster by reinstating the original viewing corridor under Regional Planning Guidance 3A (RPG3A).
* Amend the London Plan to protect three additional sites in London, rejecting future planning applications that obstruct views from St James’s Park towards Horse Guards Road; the bridge over the Serpentine in Hyde Park to Westminster; and Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs to the Royal Naval College.
* Call on the Government to adopt the ‘Merton Rule’ to promote the use of on-site renewable energy.
* Amend the London Plan to urge developers to adopt the Sustainable Code to build low carbon homes for the private sector market.
* Publish a specific outer London development strategy.
* Amend the London Plan to protect domestic gardens from new development.
* Encourage planners to use section 106 to secure affordable units for small, independent shops.
### London’s Skyline
It is hugely embarrassing that the United Nations cultural office, UNESCO, considers two of London’s greatest architectural triumphs, the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster, potential candidates for the endangered list of world heritage sites, joining the likes of the Ashur Palace in Iraq and the Minaret in Afghanistan. Additionally, The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has asked for a further report on proposed developments around the Houses of Parliament and the Tower of London in 2008.
London’s skyline is precious. Tall buildings must be part of London’s development, but not at the expense of existing landmarks. Tourists flock to London because of its landmarks, and 91% of people want views protected around St Paul’s and the Palace of Westminster. English Heritage, Public attitudes towards tall buildings in cities, 2001.
### Reinstating Protection Of Ten London Views
London needs a Mayor who values London’s skyline. Under RPG3A (1991), ten strategic views were protected in London, eight of St Paul’s Cathedral and two of the Palace of Westminster. Applications for new developments are assessed against the impact they would have on views of the two landmarks. Planning applications would
be refused if they threaten these views by crossing the official line between the strategic viewpoint and the landmark.
Under the new London Plan, and the accompanying London View Management Framework (LVMF), the widths of viewing corridors and assessment areas (geometric protection) have been reduced from that in RPG3A.151 We will reinstate the original viewing corridors under RPG3A.
### Views Of The City, Not City Hall
Ken Livingstone has found time to add a new protection zone to the London Plan – views from City Hall. The LVMF designates a “protected vista” from the “strategically important landmark” that is City Hall, stating that “the Mayor will, and boroughs should, normally refuse or direct refusal of developments in front and middle ground assessment areas that are overly intrusive, unsightly or prominent to the detriment of the view as a whole.”
The current London Plan gives undue priority to skyscrapers, in particular policy 4B.9, which outlines how “the Mayor will promote the development of tall buildings”.152 We need more balance in the London Plan. This will be achieved by removing the promotion of tall buildings from it, and amending the Plan to adhere to the original viewing corridors set in the RPG3A.
### New Clarity To The London View Management Framework
We will bring clarity to the LVMF, which has introduced an additional 16 views of London landmarks (26, including the 10 original viewpoints).
The problem is that the Framework offers no actual protection even close to the ‘linear assessment area’ which replaced RPG3A. For example, it affords no protection to the view from the bridge in St James’s Park, across Horse Guards Road. Three tall buildings are threatening this historic part of London’s skyline, including the 43-floor Doon Street development which is currently being considered by a Planning Inspector.153
Ken Livingstone is vigorously supporting Doon Street, despite the fact that this entirely residential development will have no units of affordable housing – completely contrary to the London Plan’s 50% target.154
151 The current ‘wider setting consultation area’ is to be replaced with ‘Linear assessment area’, which is no longer, in all cases, directly related symmetrically to the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral.
152 GLA, The London Plan, February 2008.
153 The 43 floor skyscraper could be built immediately behind the National Theatre on the South Bank, and would infringe the view from the bridge within St James’s Park, despite the protection which is meant to be afforded by the Framework, and would also be visible from the Grade I listed Somerset House.
154 English Heritage, A towering mistake for the London skyline, 2007.
The protection offered by the London View Management Framework to existing
strategic views is wholly inadequate. It states that any tall building proposed along
the St James’s skyline should be of “exceptional design quality” and “appropriate
scale” – in other words, it implicitly gives the ‘green light’ to development.
We need a fresh approach. RPG3A offered protection to London’s historic views
through a series of geometric definitions at different assessment points. The end
product is a ‘cone’. We need to apply the same ‘wide definition’ protection that has
been afforded to from City Hall to the Tower of London to:
* St James’s Park towards Horse Guards Road
* The bridge over the Serpentine in Hyde Park to Westminster
* Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs to the Royal Naval College.155
This would protect, through a visual ‘cone’, several historic short-range views across
London, the boundaries within which no development can take place.
To agree the geometric definitions of each ‘cone’, we would appoint a panel of
experts, including the building industry, representatives of the architects, and the
heritage industry. We would also welcome the involvement of UNESCO to restore
confidence that our great city’s skyline will be protected.
The claim that a buffer zone would stifle London’s commercial development has
been rejected by the London Planning Advisory Committee and a House of
Commons Select Committee, and those rejections have been endorsed by the
Government. In particular, the Select Committee concluded that no company had
been put off locating in London because of lack of office space, and that there was in
any case plenty of other areas suitable for development.156
## Freedom For Borough Councils
We want to encourage more on-site renewable energy generation in London. Some
borough councils have been setting high standards for on-site energy generation on
developments. For example, Croydon required a 15% on-site renewable energy
target on new developments in 2007.157
Merton Borough Council has devised the ‘Merton Rule’ which set this target by unit
size.158 We are concerned that the latest draft of the Climate Change Planning Policy
Supplement undermines the Merton Rule by requiring councils to avoid compulsory
155 GLA, The London Plan 2008, page 258.
156 Select Committee on Department Local Government and the Regions report, Tall Buildings, 2002, together with the
Government’s response.
157 GLA, The London Plan, 2008.
158 Named after Merton Council where it was first used, the Merton Rule requires all new developments (over a certain size and
number) to generate a minimum percentage of its energy through on-site renewable technologies.
on-site renewable requirements. This would be a major setback for London’s carbon emissions reduction targets.
We will vigorously call on the Government to amend the current Housing and Regeneration Bill to legally protect borough councils that decide to adopt the Merton Rule from judicial review, giving them statutory protection to adopt it, should they choose to do so.
## New Private Sector Builds
Whilst we welcome the new Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) 1 to 6 star system to indicate overall sustainability performance of a home for public housing, the National Housing Federation estimates that 92% of public sector developments in 2007/8 will be at or above Level 3, in other words ‘very good’ or better on the eco homes assessment criteria.159 The challenge is private builds, where the CSH remains voluntary. We will clarify the Housing Strategy to call for all new homes in London to meet Level 3 of the Code by 2010, and Level 6 by 2016.
## Regenerating Outer London
Ken Livingstone has neglected London’s suburbs. The London Plan is a zone 1 plan, despite the fact that 47% of new housing built before 2016 will be in the suburbs.160 Over 4.6 million people live in the outer boroughs, and this is expected to grow by 10% over the next 20 years.161 42% of jobs are located in London’s nineteen outer boroughs, and this is expected to grow by 11% over the next 20 years.162
We believe the Mayor of London has important responsibilities through the GLA, TfL and the LDA to help outer boroughs meet Planning Policy Statement 6.
This promotes town centre vitality and viability by; planning for the growth and development of existing centres; promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in good environments.163
To compliment the London Plan we will produce a separate strategy on how to encourage sustainable economic growth in outer London. We will oversee the process and engage a group of leading businesspeople, entrepreneurs and councillors from the outer London boroughs to draw up the proposals.
159 The future of the Code for Sustainable Homes – Making a rating mandatory, DCLG 23 July 2007. One star indicates entry level, with standards set above the level of the Buildings regulations, the minimum statutory building standards. Six stars is the highest level, deemed to be exemplar at current standards.
160 London Assembly, Semi-detached: connecting London’s suburbs, June 2007, page 7.
161 Ibid, page 27.
162 Ibid.
163 Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning for Town Centres, 2007.
## Saving Small Shops
It is estimated that around 7,000 small shops in London have closed over the last six years. Given the important part SMEs play in London’s economy, this is worrying. It is a vital sector in London, employing over 400,000 people, and accounting for 9% of total employment. They populate over 200 town centres in the capital,164 and Londoners are more likely to shop very close to home than anywhere else in the UK.165
The latest survey of small shops in the capital, by the London Chamber of Commerce, found that the top two pressures cited by independent shops are competition from supermarkets (78%) and rising rents (67%).166 The Competition Commission recently raised concerns over the impact of supermarkets, calling for local planning authorities to adopt a ‘competition test’ when they decide whether a new store should go ahead. This would mean planners would be able to stop a supermarket chain building another store in an area if they already had local dominance.167 Supermarkets can hold an incredibly dominant market share. According to data from CACI, for example, Tesco holds a 47% market share in Twickenham.168
Property costs are a serious concern for small retailers, and with good reason: they are currently rising much faster than sales growth.169 The UK is the only country in Europe to fuse long leases with upward rent reviews.170
We need to preserve small, independent shops. We will amend the London Plan to help protect them by encouraging borough councils to use a section 106 (or the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy proposed under the Planning and Regeneration Bill) to secure a proportion of ‘affordable’ units for small, independent retailers in large retail developments.
## Stop The Garden Grab
In addition to protecting London’s green belt by using the Mayor’s powers to refuse any applications to build on it, we will protect London’s gardens. In recent years, London has lost to concrete a quantity of domestic front gardens equivalent to twenty-two times the size of Hyde Park – or the combined equivalent of Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington.171 In 2006 alone, 1,113 London gardens
164 A Balance of Trade: Everyone can help, Commission on Retail Conservation, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, page 25.
165 Competition Commission, The supply of groceries in the UK market provision, 31 October 2007.
166 London Chamber of Commerce, London small shops survey, 2007.
167 Competition Commission, The supply of groceries in the UK market provision, 31 October 2007.
168 IGD Convenience Retailing Report, 2005.
169 IGD Convenience Retailing Report, 2005.
170 High Street Britain: 2015, All Party Small Shops Group, House of Commons, 2006.
171 London Assembly, Offside: The Loss of London's Playing Fields, May 2006 and London Assembly, Crazy Paving: The environmental importance of London’s front gardens, September 2005.
were used for new build, and 10% of planning approvals in Croydon were on
domestic gardens, 7% in Sutton, and between 5-7% in Bromley, Ealing, Enfield, and
Hillingdon.172 London has also suffered a net loss of 32 allotment sites, or 4.2% over
the last decade in London.173
There is now considerable pressure from the Government for higher housing density,
for instance, Planning Policy Guidance 3 (2000) details “efficient use of land”,
stating:
“30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum
to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density targets are in
place where Local Planning Authorities wish to plan for, or agree to, densities
below this minimum, this will need to be justified.”174
The re-classification of domestic gardens under PPG3 has considerably reduced
domestic gardens’ protection. We will reverse this by bringing forward further
alterations to the London Plan to protect domestic gardens, by adding a presumption
to Policy 3D.9 that domestic gardens will not be used for residential development.
This will make a real difference. Since the existing London Plan was published, the
proportion of residential land – including gardens – in the capital used for new build
has increased. It is imperative that the new housing needed in the capital is not built
at the expense of existing open green spaces.
172London Assembly Environment Committee, Garden Grabbing Update, 11 October 2007, page 2.
173 A lot to lose: London's disappearing allotments. London Assembly Environment Committee October 2006.
174 Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, 29 November 2006.
# Appreciating Our Seniors
Boris Johnson
# **Appreciating Our Seniors**
When people talk of London as a diverse city, they usually mean our great cultural and ethnic mix. But London also boasts a great mix of ages; while some places can be characterised as ‘young’ cities and others are known as retirement towns, London defies such descriptions, with a significant older population living alongside a younger one.[^1]
If elected as Mayor of London in May, I will work to improve our city for all Londoners, including the more than one million pensioners who live in the capital.
The biggest concern for many older Londoners is that the fear of crime prevents them from living their lives fully and freely. Those who have given much to our communities deserve to have special recognition and support.
If older Londoners have seen the neighbourhoods they have known for decades decline into dangerous territory, and if every journey they make on public transport is tainted by fear and suspicion, it is understandable that they might want to retreat from London life. But I refuse to accept this situation.
I reject the notion that there must be no-go areas in our city, and that our older population must resign themselves to lives led in fear.
My primary goal as Mayor of London will be to tackle crime and return a feeling of safety to our streets, to ensure that *everyone* can participate in the life, culture and economy of the greatest city on earth – regardless of their age or the neighbourhood they live in.
We must work to make London more age-friendly by improving transport services, protecting and extending the Freedom Pass, and ensuring accessibility to public services. It is also important to recognise that community-based enterprises like local Post Offices and small shops are vital for older Londoners, and they must be protected accordingly.
It is said that you can judge a place and a people by the way they treat their elderly citizens. Under my Mayoralty I am certain that London will be judged as a civilised place; a city that cares for and acknowledges its older citizens.
[^1]: WHO, Global Age Friendly Cities, 2007.
# My Pledges
I will:
## 1. Make London Safer
* Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority to make our streets safer.
* Stand up against excessive police form-filling and support the scrapping of the stop and account form, lobbying the Government hard for its removal.
* Expect Police Community Support Officers to take some of the administrative burden from police officers, so they can spend more time out on the streets.
* Crack down on binge-drinking and ‘name and shame’ councils that fail to use their powers to tackle the problem.
## 2. Help Older Londoners Get Around Safely
* Protect and extend the Freedom Pass by working with the local councils (who fund it) to make it valid 24 hours a day.
* Increase safety on buses by doubling the amount of police officers on patrol, adding 440 extra officers; and fund 50 extra fully-warranted British Transport Police Officers to patrol the worst railway stations in outer London.
* Crack down on the young people who create trouble on the buses through the Payback London scheme, which will withdraw their right to free bus travel and allow them to earn it back by undertaking community service.
* Work with the Government and train operators to make more overground stations step-free.
## 3. Make London Age Friendly
* Encourage developers to design safer walkways, better paving, and greener spaces into new developments, including in the Thames Gateway.
* Preserve the existence of small, independent shops through better protection in planning legislation.
* Improve open spaces in London, and work with local councils to improve street cleanliness.
- Safeguard domestic gardens by preventing developments on them.
- Improve respect for older people by encouraging organisations to recruit older people as volunteers, including for the Olympics.
- Instruct the London Skills and Employment Board to run a campaign to promote age equality in the work place.
## 4. Fight For Essential Public Services
- Support local health services by campaigning against closures and fighting to save local GP services.
- Campaign to protect Post Offices.
- Encourage awareness and take-up of entitlements by older people, especially Council Tax, through a ‘Your Rights’ information campaign.
- Introduce an automatic one-off Council Tax rebate to encourage home insulation, making homes warmer and more environmentally friendly.
## 1. Making London Safer
I will:
* Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority to make our streets safer.
* Stand up against excessive police form-filling and support the
scrapping of the stop and account form, lobbying the Government hard
for its removal.
* Expect Police Community Support Officers to take some of the
administrative burden from police officers, so they can spend more time
out on the streets.
* Crack down on binge-drinking and ‘name and shame’ councils that fail
to use their powers to tackle the problem.
## Making Streets Safer
We need to restore confidence in the justice system, and the first step is to restore
safety to London’s streets. Confidence in the justice system has reduced amongst
people aged over 55 years – fewer than one in five feel the needs of victims of crime
are met.2
Violent crime in London has risen under Ken Livingstone.3 In 2006-07 alone, over
230,000 violent crimes were recorded in London, including over 45,000 robberies
and over 9,000 sexual offences.4 To begin to tackle this, we believe there must be a
**crackdown on the culture of incivility on our streets.**
This means cutting the bureaucracy faced by police officers. Red tape reduces
police time on the beat. Last year the Metropolitan Police stopped 384,115 people.5
After each encounter the officers involved are required to fill in a foot-long form which
takes, on average, 25 minutes.6 This means that last year a staggering 160,048
police hours were wasted filling in one type of form. Ending the stop and account
form would mean that police could spend an extra 160,048 hours on the beat – the
equivalent of adding 78 new officers to the force.7 Therefore, we will actively support
calls to scrap this form, and will lobby the Government to that effect.
2 British Crime Survey 2006/7, table 5.02. Just 18% in each category (55-64 years old and 65-74 years old) felt victims’ needs
were met compared with 21% in each group in the 2005/6 BCS, table 3.04.
3 Home Office, Crime in England and Wales.
4 Home Office, Crime in England and Wales 2006/2007, July 2007.
5 MPA Stop and Account figures, December 2006 – November 2007.
6 Sir Ronnie Flanagan, ‘Review of Policing; Interim Report’, Home Office, September 2007.
7 Ibid. On average an officer works 2057 hours per year.
We also need to look at stop and search. It is well known that this form-filling is time consuming and keeps police officers off the streets. Stop and searches should still be recorded by an officer, who will radio in essential details of the search – thereby allowing them to be recorded without the extra burden of having to fill in a form at the scene and a further form back at the station.
We will make reducing form-filling and bureaucracy a key strategic priority, so that police can do what they do best; protecting Londoners. We must focus on allowing the police to do their jobs, and we must end the culture of target-setting that has destroyed Londoners’ confidence in the police.
This requires a Mayor who will prioritise cutting red tape, but this has not been a priority for Ken Livingstone. The latest local policing plan (the strategy produced by the MPA and endorsed by the Labour Chair Len Duvall and Sir Ian Blair until 2010) does not include cutting red tape as one of its main strategic priorities.8 This demonstrates that the current leadership is out of touch, and we will seek to amend the plan to include this as a key strategic priority.
## Stamping Out Binge Drinking
We will encourage London’s councils to do more with their powers to crack down on binge drinking and alcohol-related violence, which are major problems in town centres across London. The GLA itself found that alcohol is implicated in 40% of incidents of violence crime.9 Violent crime in London has increased by 13.7% over the last 8 years,10 and alcohol-related hospital admissions are also up.11
It is quite wrong that town centres are becoming no-go areas every Friday and Saturday night and something needs to be done. In addition to getting more police on the streets, we need to tackle the problem at its core and get tough with bars and shops that break the rules. We must make alcohol harder to buy for under-18s in order to tackle the problem of underage drinking and deal with alcohol-related violence.
Local councils have the power to take action against bars, clubs and off-licences that sell alcohol out of hours, or to under-18s. The Licensing Act 2003 allows councils to initiate a review of licences at any time, and take immediate action to withdraw licences. Councils such as the London Borough of Bexley have taken a pro-active approach and achieved good results – their initiative led to a 22% drop in violent crime – and they are now the toughest council in London.
8 ‘Policing London’, Metropolitan Police Authority, 2007.
9 http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/health/drugs_and_alcohol/policy_summary.jsp
10 The latest Met Police figures for February 2008 show that, compared with February 2000, violent crime increased from 11,650 to 13,245, an increase of 13.7%. MPS Crime Figures Financial Year 2000/1 and 2006/7.
11 The number of under-18s hospitalised for alcohol misuse has increased by nearly 40% since 2000. Last year, 8,245 under-18s were admitted to hospital via A&E for alcohol misuse. Hansard, 8 January 2008, col. 461W.
Following discussions with local councils, we are proposing a three-point plan:
* ‘Name and shame’ the councils that perform badly on stamping out binge drinking.
* Publish league tables naming and shaming the councils that do not use their new powers to crack down on binge drinking.
* Use the Mayor’s influence as chair of the MPA to ensure that police officers take a more proactive approach to confiscating alcohol from underage drinkers.
## Taking Responsibility
This focused effort to make London’s streets safer will be achieved by taking leadership, taking responsibility and taking control of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The Mayor of London has the right to Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority – the body set up to scrutinise and support the work of the Metropolitan Police Service – and to set its strategic direction. Boris Johnson will exercise this right so that there is a direct link between the police and the Mayor, so the Mayor is more accountable for what happens in the police.
Chairing the MPA will enable the Mayor to get directly involved with the day-to-day scrutiny of the police and get more officers on the streets.[12] It will also mean that the police are more accountable to Londoners.
The Commissioner is required to submit a local policing plan to the MPA for its consideration. We will draft a new local policing plan, in consultation with the Commissioner, which will have as its priority making the streets of London safer and increasing the number of police on the beat by reducing unnecessary form-filling for police officers.
We will also expect each Borough Commander to hold open public meetings every month to make the police more accountable to local residents.
## Strengthening Police Community Support Officers
PCSOs are a valuable part of the Metropolitan Police, and have an important role to play. Yet Londoners are not willing to give them their full support, because they know their powers are limited.
[12] “The Mayor of London sets the annual budget for five functional bodies, which have become known as the 'GLA Group'. The group comprises the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.” The MPA budget factsheet, http://www.mpa.gov.uk/about/publications/factsheets/mpa-budget.htm
We will work with the Commissioner and the Home Office to investigate what further
powers PCSOs in London could have.
We will also work with the Commissioner to ensure that PCSOs take some of the
administrative burden from fully-warranted police officers, so that more time can be
spent on the beat.
7
## 2. Helping Older Londoners Get Around Safely
I will:
* Protect and extend the Freedom Pass by working with the local councils (who fund it) to make it valid 24 hours a day.
* Increase safety on buses by doubling the amount of police officers on patrol, adding 440 extra officers; and fund 50 extra fully-warranted British Transport Police Officers to patrol the worst railway stations in outer London.
* Crack down on the young people who create trouble on the buses through the Payback London scheme, which will withdraw their right to free bus travel and allow them to earn it back by undertaking community service.
* Work with the Government and train operators to make more overground stations step-free.
### Protecting The Freedom Pass
One in three Londoners is aged over 55, and as people get older mobility can become a bigger concern. At the moment the Freedom Pass cannot be used between 4.30am and 9am, meaning it is more difficult for elderly people to make early morning appointments with, for instance, their local GP. Last year Transport for London (TfL) – which is chaired by Ken Livingstone – threatened future funding for the Freedom Pass. This uncertainty must stop.
For those who are entitled to the Freedom Pass, I will **protect it as an untouchable right**, and I will, unlike the current Labour Mayor, work with the borough councils (who fund it) to make it operational for 24 hours a day.
### Safer Buses
Many people no longer feel safe on the buses. Londoners should be able to travel on the bus without fear of intimidation or worse. We need to **defeat the kind of low-level crime committed on public transport** that makes people’s lives a misery, and often leads to more serious crime. The London Assembly Transport Committee found that crime on buses increased by over 17% between 2004-05 and 2006-07.
and drug offences on buses by 63.3%.¹⁶ Yet Ken Livingstone has steadfastly refused to acknowledge an increase in anti-social behaviour. It is simply unacceptable that gangs treat buses as glorified getaway vehicles and that passengers have to endure being spat at, verbally abused or worse.
Therefore, I will release funds that Ken Livingstone has earmarked for TfL advertising and press officers to be spent on approximately **440 PCSOs to be added to the existing Safer Transport Teams, doubling their strength.**¹⁷ And I will release funds that Ken Livingstone has earmarked for police advertising and press officers to be spent on approximately **50 extra fully-warranted British Transport Police Officers to patrol the worst stations in outer London.**¹⁸
A greater police presence on buses and trains and at transport hubs such as bus stops and rail platforms will **act as a visible deterrent to anti-social behaviour.**
We will also invest £150,000 to trial live CCTV for 20 of the most dangerous bus routes in London. This trial will run for a six-month period to assess the success of the scheme before rolling out across the network.¹⁹
## Improving Buses And Bus Routes
We also want to improve access to buses for older Londoners. This means both improving the buses themselves and **ensuring that ramps and other mobility facilities are fully functioning** before they leave the depot.
It also means improving bus routes so that people living in outer London do not have to travel into London to reach a neighbouring area. For example, a journey from Bromley to Sutton covering 11 miles can take up to three interchanges and two hours using public transport. By car it takes just 30 minutes.²⁰ It is impossible for Londoners to get from Bexley to Richmond without first going into central London.²¹ We will **commission a trial of orbital express bus routes for outer London, connecting key hubs**, and consult widely with local residents and councils before tendering them on a trial basis.
¹⁶ TfL Press Release, 20 November 2007, using combined six month figures for the years 2006 and 2007.
¹⁷ Transport for London forecast that they will spend £66 million on advertising, marketing and communications in 2007/08 (GLA Group Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09; Consultation Document, p 82). This is an overspend of 65% on their original budget of £40 million. We propose to cap their spending in real terms, raising it to £67.3 million, rather than the £84 million Mr Livingstone wants (GLA Group Budget Report 08/09 at p82). £16.5 million of the money saved will be redirected to the existing Safer Transport Teams and will pay for an approximate 440 additional PCSOs, doubling their strength. £150,000 of the additional money saved will also be used to fund the trial of live CCTV on buses. On 12 March 2008, TfL announced that it would reduce its overspend to £63 million, although it is unclear where the money has been allocated. We will still allocate £16.5 million from the advertising, marketing and communications budget to pay for more police from whichever of the two budget figures TfL finally decides on.
¹⁸ This will be funded by releasing £3.1 million that has been earmarked for MPS advertising and spin doctors. The MPA estimates the full cost of an officer at £54,000. Provision of Additional Police Officers on Boroughs, MPA, 10 January 2008.
¹⁹ See footnote 17 for costings.
²⁰ Timings for public transport taken from TfL Journey Planner and timings for the car taken from the RAC Journey Planner.
²¹ See TfL Journey Planner for more details.
## Payback London
Whilst we think it’s great that under-18s can travel on our buses for free, there is a growing minority that abuse that right; who intimidate other passengers through threatening and anti-social behaviour. We believe the right to travel for free on buses must be balanced with the **responsibility to behave** and show respect for other passengers.
If that responsibility is ignored we will take away the right to free travel from those who abuse it, and we will expect them to **earn it back** by doing work with existing community service schemes, which might mean cleaning up graffiti, volunteering in community centres or other helpful local activities.
## Step-Free Stations
We will seek to **secure more funds to make overground stations step-free** by instructing Transport for London to work with train operators to identify stations in London that are located in areas with a high proportion of elderly people, and that do not currently offer adequate access, to secure investment from the Government’s national £370 million Access for All station upgrade fund.²²
## Dial-a-Ride
We support the Dial-a-Ride system to help older Londoners get road transport from door-to-door, especially for people with disabilities. This scheme was launched by the borough councils and was recently taken over by TfL. However, there are still serious failings in the booking system for rides. TfL said it would finally sort this out two years ago – but according to papers released by TfL in February 2008, this has still not happened.²³ We will **make it a priority to implement a new, smoothly operating booking system for Dial-a-Ride**.
## Blue Badges
We will support borough councils that **crack down on the abuse of blue badge parking spaces**, as well as protecting the exemption provided to blue badge holders from the Congestion Charge.
²² Department for Transport, More stations to be made accessible, 31 January 2008.
²³ TfL Board Meeting Papers, 6 February 2008, page 51.
## Making London Age Friendly
I will:
* Encourage developers to design safer walkways, better paving, and greener spaces in new developments, including in the Thames Gateway.
* Preserve the existence of small, independent shops through better protection in planning legislation.
* Improve open spaces in London, and work with local councils to improve street cleanliness.
* Safeguard domestic gardens by preventing developments on them.
* Improve respect for older people by encouraging organisations to recruit older people as volunteers, including for the Olympics.
## Regenerating Outer London
We want thriving London suburbs, with vibrant high streets, so that older Londoners can access services in their local area without feeling the need to travel into central London or an out-of-town shopping centre to access facilities. These services include the local Post Office, small shops, and a local GP.
It is estimated that around 7,000 small shops in London have closed over the last six years.24 The latest survey of small shops in the capital, conducted by the London Chamber of Commerce, found that the top two pressures cited by independent shops are competition from supermarkets (78%) and rising rents (67%).25 The Competition Commission recently raised concerns over the impact of supermarkets, calling for local planning authorities to adopt a ‘competition test’ to decide whether a new store should go ahead. This would mean planners would be able to stop a supermarket chain building another store in an area if they already had local dominance.26 Supermarkets can hold an incredibly dominant market share. According to data from CACI, for example, Tesco holds a 47% market share in Twickenham.27
24 The Evening Standard Save Our Small Shops campaign at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23411591-details/Save+Our+Small+Shops/article.do.
25 London Chamber of Commerce, London Small Shops Survey, 2007.
26 Competition Commission, The supply of groceries in the UK market provision, 31 October 2007.
27 IGD Convenience Retailing Report, 2005.
Property costs are a serious concern for small retailers, and with good reason: they
are currently rising much faster than sales growth.28 The UK is the only country in
Europe to fuse long leases with upward rent reviews.29
We need to **preserve small, independent shops**. We will amend the London Plan
to help protect them by encouraging borough councils to use a section 106 (or the
proposed Community Infrastructure Levy proposed under the Planning and
Regeneration Bill) to secure a proportion of ‘affordable’ units for small, independent
retailers in large retail developments.
Ken Livingstone has neglected London’s suburbs. Over 4.6 million people live in
London’s 19 outer boroughs, and around one third of them is aged over 50.30 To
complement the London Plan we will produce a separate strategy on how to
**encourage sustainable suburbs** in London. Central to this strategy will be the
protection of small shops.
### ‘Lifelong Neighbourhoods’
We want a London where new developments build strong communities that will last.
This means planners giving greater attention to building ‘age-friendly’ developments
for the future, to include features such as better paving and kerbs, improved street
lighting, better positioned bus stops and access to toilets and other amenities.
The current London Plan does not adequately reflect the need for new communities,
such as those in the Thames Gateway, to be designed for older people. The latest
version of the London Plan, published by Ken Livingstone, does not even mention
the issue of age.
We will therefore amend the London Plan throughout to ensure that it **addresses the
needs of older Londoners** in new developments. For example, Policy 2A.9 on
sustainable communities requires new developments to have childcare facilities
within ‘walking distance’. We would amend this to include facilities for older
residents as well. In particular, new developments forming the Thames Gateway
should be built to encourage age-friendly neighbourhoods.
We will also work with borough councils to ensure that Local Development
Frameworks, agreed with the Mayor, meet the needs of an ageing society to improve
the supply and quality of housing. By promoting ‘Lifelong Neighbourhoods’ in the
London Plan, we will be able to build sustainable communities for the future.
We would also welcome this approach being applied to existing town centres, with town planners encouraging **better signage and access to shops, theatres and restaurants**, especially to help disabled Londoners.
## Making Developments Secure
The fear of crime dramatically reduces people’s quality of life. The Association of Chief Police Officers has devised a series of design principles named ‘Secured By Design’ (SBD), that have been incorporated into many new developments across the country to cut crime and increase residents’ quality of life.
SBD principles include creating defensible space; organising the built environment so that anti-social behaviour is less likely to be ignored, such as houses that face each other; creating space that generalises a sense of ownership, such as front gardens, rather than space which promotes anonymity; and promoting natural surveillance from residents’ houses.
Houses that meet SBD standards experience a quarter less crime than non-SBD houses, and residents’ fear of crime is lower.31 For instance, a study by Bedfordshire Police reported crime and disorder on a 4,500-home development incorporating SBD principles will average approximately 680 incidents a year. The same number of homes in an estate incorporating the Government’s planning principles will result in 4,080 crime and disorder incidents a year, six times as many as on a SBD development.32
Despite this evidence, Ken Livingstone is failing to prioritise the principles of designing out crime. He mentions them only once in his statutory Draft Housing Strategy. We will make **designing out crime a key priority** in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing Strategy, to prevent creating poor-quality housing where crime flourishes.
## Making London Greener
Litter, graffiti and fly-tipping damage London’s environment, encourage more serious crimes and affect Londoners’ quality of life. These activities send a message to offenders that no-one cares about an area and that it is free to ‘trash’, leading to rising crime.
We have to help the boroughs to make our capital cleaner and safer for all Londoners. MORI’s Annual London Surveys consistently show that more than half of Londoners do not believe London is a clean city. The latest figures for London show a 22% annual rise in fly-tipping incidents and a total of nearly 600,000 incidents dealt
31 Home Office press release, Design Alliance: fighting crime from the drawing board, 14 August 2007.
32 Bedfordshire Police, The Cost of Policing New Urbanism, April 2003, page 3.
with by the boroughs in 2006-07, at a total cost of nearly £20 million³³ – but there
were only 293 prosecutions for fly-tipping in the same period.³⁴ We will push for
**prosecutions in all instances of fly-tipping.**
We also want to see information on fly-tipping and graffiti incorporated into New
York-style crime maps. These will provide accurate, up-to-date information for
Londoners to hold their local councils to account, and will enable councils to target
areas where these offences frequently occur.
In addition to protecting **London’s green belt** by using the Mayor’s powers to
refuse any applications to build on it, we will protect London’s gardens. In recent
years, London has lost domestic front gardens equivalent to twenty-two times the
size of Hyde Park – or the combined equivalent of Hammersmith and Fulham and
Islington – to concrete.³⁵ In 2006 alone, 1,133 London gardens were used for new
build.³⁶ London has also suffered a net loss of 32 allotment sites, or 4.2% over the
last decade in London.³⁷
There is now considerable pressure from the Government for higher housing density.
For instance, Planning Policy Guidance 3 (2000) details “efficient use of land”,³⁸ and
the re-classification of domestic gardens under PPG3 has dramatically reduced
domestic gardens’ protection. We will reverse this by bringing forward further
alterations to the London Plan to **protect domestic gardens**, by adding a
presumption to Policy 3D.9 that domestic gardens will not be used for residential
development. This will make a real difference. Since the existing London Plan was
published, the proportion of residential land – including gardens – in the capital used
for new build has increased. It is imperative that the new housing needed in the
capital is not built at the expense of existing open green spaces.
## More Affordable Housing
There are real concerns over pensioner poverty in the capital, together with the
access to permanent, desirable, and affordable housing. In some boroughs, half the
social housing tenants will be over 65 years old, and around 36% of pensioners are
officially living below the poverty line when housing costs are taken into account.³⁹
**To meet the housing needs of older Londoners**, we will increase the supply of
affordable housing by building 50,000 more affordable homes by 2011. We will work
with the boroughs to agree a unit build of new homes each year, and will focus on
³³ http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/flytipping/pdf/2006-07-flycapture-london.pdf
³⁴ Ibid.
³⁵ London Assembly, Offside: The Loss of London's Playing Fields, May 2006 and London Assembly, Crazy Paving: The
environmental importance of London’s front gardens, September 2005.
³⁶ London Assembly Environment Committee, Garden Grabbing Update, 11 October 2007, page 2. Last year, 10% of planning
approvals in Croydon were on domestic gardens, 7% in Sutton, and between 5-7% in Bromley, Ealing, Enfield, and Hillingdon.
³⁷ A lot to lose: London's disappearing allotments. London Assembly Environment Committee October 2006.
³⁸ Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, 29 November 2006.
³⁹ Age Concern, Submission on the London Housing Strategy, 2005-2016, February 2005.
those boroughs with the greatest housing waiting list needs. Our approach will also
prioritise the quality as well as the quantity of new affordable homes – we want
homes that are not just ‘decent’ but also desirable.
There are two other types of housing that we need to give greater attention to in the
London Plan. We want to champion independent living, but the Government’s
independent living grant for the UK, administered by local authorities, will increase by
just 1% over the next three years under the Comprehensive Spending Review –
despite extra demand.40 We will call on the Government to increase the level of
funding for the independent living grant allocated to London Councils.
The local government settlement for London is also a disgrace, with 29 of the 32
boroughs on the ‘floor’ – in other words, receiving a below inflation increase – which
is putting social services under severe strain and limiting the opportunity for older
people to live independently.
Wherever possible, we want to support people to live independently in their own
home, but where necessary we want to ensure that there is adequate provision of
supported accommodation for elderly Londoners, with a warden living on site. This
means increasing the supply of sheltered accommodation, which still affords some
independence to individuals. The Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation
have identified a severe shortfall of supported accommodation in London.41 We will
match the increase of new supported accommodation units by 400 homes each year
from 2008 to 2011, and the funding for this will be met through the Regional Housing
Pot.
## **Respecting Older People**
It is shocking that almost two out of three Londoners aged over 50 have experienced
ageism.42 We need to campaign in the capital to ensure that older Londoners
receive the respect and support that they deserve. We believe the Olympics and
Paralympics must play a role here. Over 100,000 people have registered to
volunteer for the 2012 Games, and **older people must be central to the Olympic
volunteering strategy.**
We will encourage London 2012 to devise projects, like those operated by the
Voluntary Services Council, to get older people helping with schools sports. There
are also a range of tasks, from press organisation through to spectator services,
where we believe the skills, experience and knowledge of older people will add real
value to the 2012 Games.
40 National Centre for Independent Living, Our Lives, Our Choices, 2007.
41 London Housing Federation/GLA/Housing Corporation, Building For All: Identifying the Need for Supported Housing in
London, May 2007.
42 Age Concern, How Ageist Is London?, 2007.
Furthermore, we will instruct the London Skills and Employment Board to run a
campaign to promote age equality in the work place. Large numbers of
Londoners aged over 55 are working, but face discrimination in the work place and in
job interviews. The Mayor of London must use his office to promote equality at work,
including at the GLA itself.
16
## 4. Fighting For Essential Services
### I will:
* Support local health services by campaigning against closures and fighting to save local GP services.
* Campaign to protect Post Offices.
* Encourage awareness and take-up of entitlements by older people, especially Council Tax, through a ‘Your Rights’ information campaign.
* Introduce an automatic one-off Council Tax rebate to encourage home insulation, making homes warmer and more environmentally friendly.
## Fighting Hospital Closures
The Government’s plans to impose 150 polyclinics on the capital threaten accessibility to local services. Londoners must be able to access services as close as possible to their home, and this is especially important as people get older, or experience reduced mobility.
Polyclinics could also herald the end of the family doctor in London. Though 89% of patients value knowing their doctor by name, polyclinics could mean the end of the personalised NHS.43 This downgrading of the patient-doctor relationship threatens continuity of care as polyclinics will also reduce GPs’ referral role for patients at a time when we should be increasing their commissioning responsibilities.
As the British Medical Association states, “we believe that the non-involvement of a GP practice in the urgent care of a registered patient would inevitably be detrimental to that patient as not only does using the knowledge of the patient history and medical record held at GP and primary health care team level help to avoid inappropriate hospital admissions, but the coordination of patient care at this level will lead to the best possible health outcomes.”44 **I will fight to stop family doctors being forced into polyclinics.**
London’s hospitals, from St. Mary’s at Sidcup to Chase Farm at Enfield, are already witnessing key services such as Accident & Emergency units under threat, and further cuts are looming under the Government’s plans to centralise London’s NHS. Older patients make up the majority of the 23% of patients who require hospital admission, but who spend over four hours in Accident & Emergency. Reducing
43 BMA, Response to Lord Darzi’s review ‘Healthcare for London: A framework for action’, September 2007.
44 Ibid.
access could increase waiting times further, which is not acceptable. I want to see full **Accident & Emergency services across London**. Those extra minutes in an ambulance could mean the difference between life and death.
There are 23 acute hospital trusts in London, but under the Government’s plans for the capital’s NHS, Healthcare for London, this number will be reduced. If the plans are carried out, all local hospitals could be downgraded with patients requiring critical care being transferred to a major acute hospital.45 This is against the advice of professionals, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) which has unequivocally stated: “It is essential to have high level intensive care skills on site 24/7 to support any hospital receiving emergencies”.46
London’s community hospitals are also unprotected in the Government’s plans. **We support community hospitals as vital services to the community.** We need to ensure they are not undermined by Healthcare for London with urgent clarification on their role and future.
## Protecting Post Offices
The undermining of London’s Post Office network, which disproportionally affects older people, must stop. Half of Londoners aged over 65 visit their local Post Office more than once a week, and half of London’s Post Offices have closed since Ken Livingstone became Mayor.47
The current closures are the second wave in the last eight years. Under the Government’s so-called Urban Reinvention Programme, 319 Post Offices closed in the capital between 2002-5; and now a further 171 Post Offices will be axed from service.48 This includes two closures in Bexley, five in Redbridge and more than one in four Post Offices in Wandsworth.49 This is especially disruptive for older people with disabilities.
Post Offices are crucial in supporting local retail, meaning that a Post Office closure may trigger a domino-effect of other local closures.50 The latest wave of closures now means people have a reduced security of service, with the nearest Post Office only having to be within a mile. This is a significantly longer distance than that specified for the 2005 closures, which was at least half a mile. If this continues, it will soon be 2 miles to the nearest Post Office.
45 Healthcare for London, A Framework for Action, 11 July 2007, page 98.
46 Acute health care services, report of a working party, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, September 2007, page 21.
47 The Post Office Network, CAB, March 2007.
48 Post Offices in London: future directions, Health and Public Services Committee, London Assembly, July 2007, paragraph 1.3.
49 http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/Home/MyWandsworth/Newsextra/postoffice.htm and http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/news__events/latest_news/planned_post_office_closures.aspx
50 This is based on revenue loss projections made by Post Office Ltd, and obtained by the Federation of sub-Post Masters. See 1,000 village shops may close with post offices, The Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2008.
We will amend the London Plan to recognise the need for a Post Office to be within walking distance of residents, and will continue to **campaign against the proposed closures in all parts of London, from Wandsworth to Bexley**.
## Warmer Homes
We will continue to support measures for warmer homes. To encourage home insulation schemes that make homes both warmer and environmentally friendly, we will **introduce a Council Tax rebate scheme**, funded by the energy companies, to get more cavity wall and loft insulation installed. 75 local authorities are currently working with British Gas to offer one-off Council Tax rebates to their residents who install home insulation. The schemes have proved to be very popular, with research by one of the participating councils showing that 78% of customers would not have installed insulation without the Council Tax rebate offer.⁵¹ We will encourage London boroughs to work with energy companies to offer Council Tax rebate schemes to their residents, in order to encourage them to install insulation.
## Encouraging Benefits Take-Up
People who have worked hard all their lives should be able to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Means testing and form filling add to the stigma that often surrounds claiming – and lead to millions of pounds left unclaimed. It is estimated that £4.2 billion in benefits for older people go unclaimed each year – whether that is rebate on rent, Carers Allowance, or Council Tax relief.⁵²
We need an information campaign to ensure that older people are able to access financial help when they require it. We believe one of the most successful ways to ensure older Londoners claim Government money to which they are entitled is by providing relevant information in their Council Tax bill. We will **work with London councils to start an annual ‘Your Rights’ information campaign** to take place when Council Tax bills go out so that Londoners can access the benefits to which they are entitled.
---
⁵¹ Figures from British Gas.
⁵² Help The Aged, Financial Advice, 2008.
### Getting Londoners Moving
Boris Johnson
## Getting Londoners Moving
London’s roads, river and rails are the arteries that keep our great city alive. Our Tube, buses and trains together carry over 10 million Londoners every day. Our roads are some of the most intensively used in Europe. Our transport system is the lifeblood of our city.
Yet after eight years of a Labour Mayor, we too often spend our mornings and evenings in cramped, overcrowded carriages or sitting for hours in traffic, and we pay the highest fares in Europe.
It is a fact that it takes Londoners almost twice as long to get to work as anyone else in the country, which is why it is essential that we get Londoners moving – because the time we spend stuck in traffic jams, or stuck on trains is time we could be spending with our friends and families.¹
Our challenge, therefore, is to make our transport system better to improve our quality of life.
However, in response to this challenge, we hear nothing but the same old out-of-date solutions from a Labour Mayor who has run out of ideas.
We have had to watch as vital reports and fresh ideas have been suppressed, while this Labour Mayor has pursued far-flung projects, completely out of touch with Londoners’ concerns.
We have had to sit through incompetence and financial mismanagement on a gargantuan scale.
London’s transport networks deserve a change for the better.
My vision is of a London that is not subject to the same old rigid approach, but is run according to new ideas and fresh thinking.
My vision is a London where children and adults cycle and walk to school or work and feel safe to do so.
My vision is a London with trains and buses that can compete with the very best in the world – for speed, reliability, quality of journey and basic aesthetics.
I believe we need a fresh approach, and I will enact the following measures;
¹ Transport for London, London Travel Report 2007, p.8, Table 1.4.2
## My Pledges
I will:
1. **Put The Commuter First**
* By focusing on making traffic flow more smoothly through measures like re-phasing traffic lights, allowing motorcycles in bus lanes and cracking down on utility companies who dig up the roads.
* By tackling congestion to reduce emissions.
* By re-instating tidal flow at the Blackwall tunnel and opposing increased tolls at the Dartford crossing.
* By improving public transport in outer London through orbital bus routes and campaigning for better rail services.
2. **Make Public Transport Safer And More Secure**
* By spending less on press officers and more on police officers to patrol the network – increasing their presence on buses and station platforms in outer London.
* By introducing ‘Payback London’, a scheme that will require under-18s who abuse their right to free bus travel to earn it back through community service.
* By cracking down on illegal minicabs.
3. **Tackle Problems With A Fresh Perspective**
* By supporting different forms of transport like river services, and renewing traditional forms by commissioning a 21st century Routemaster with conductors.
* By making London a truly cycle-friendly city through increasing secure cycle parking and introducing a bike-hire scheme.
4. **Make Transport More Convenient**
* By improving the daily commuter experience through better information, and extending the Oyster top-up network.
* By halting the proposed Tube ticket office closures, and ensuring there is always a manned ticket office at every station.
## What We Need To Do:
The Mayor’s biggest area of responsibility is transport, and I intend to put the **commuter first** by introducing policies that will first and foremost make journeys faster and more reliable.
This should be a given, but too often the Labour Mayor has pursued the same old policies that conflict with this basic principle.
Too often, the commuter is the very last thing on Ken Livingstone’s mind.
Measures like keeping traffic lights on red for longer to slow traffic down, and charging large family cars £25 to drive into central London whilst allowing smaller cars in for free, show that the Labour Mayor cares more about pursuing his own causes than **getting Londoners moving**.
This is why London needs a **fresh approach**.
My administration will get to grips with congestion, and I will **re-phase the traffic lights** with the sole intention of **getting traffic flowing more smoothly**. The Mayor’s Transport for London (TfL) have openly admitted that their traffic light schemes in central London have had the practical effect of reducing capacity, and have therefore slowed London down.²
I will get traffic flowing smoothly. This will make commuters’ lives easier, it will also help to reduce emissions and make buses more reliable – which will encourage long term modal shift.
Roadworks are also a major cause of congestion, and they have increased over the last year.³ Most Londoners would agree that there is nothing more frustrating than driving past a hole in the road with no obvious sign of work taking place. Or seeing the same roads dug up time and again.
I will be **tougher with utility companies**, and I will call for the Government to finally give the Mayor the power to fine utility companies who cause delays. It is unacceptable that the Labour Mayor has failed to persuade the Labour Government to give him this basic power that would make an enormous difference to congestion levels.
I will also **re-instate tidal flow** in the Blackwall tunnel at the earliest opportunity.
I will **vigorously oppose the Government’s plans to increase the Dartford crossing toll**, and campaign for residents in neighbouring London boroughs to be given a discount as is currently planned for residents in Dartford and Thurrock.
I support in principle the need for an extra river crossing upstream from Tower Bridge to ease congestion and aid economic growth. However, any scheme will have
² “The overwhelming balance of these interventions is towards those that would measurably reduce effective capacity of the road network for general traffic, thereby increasing congestion or traffic delays.” p.52, Transport for London, Congestion Charging, Impacts Monitoring, 5th Annual Report, July 2007.
³ Ibid, p. 39
to deal with the issues on both sides of the river in terms of traffic management,
safeguarding the environment and public transport usage. The current scheme for a
Thames Gateway Bridge does not currently fulfil these criteria; therefore I do not
support the scheme in its present form.
I believe that by tackling congestion, we will **tackle emissions**. Cars that are moving
emit less CO2 than those that are stuck at traffic lights, or in traffic jams. This is why
I will not allow smaller cars into the Congestion Charge zone for free, or introduce
Ken Livingstone’s £25 charge on large family cars.
Ken Livingstone’s TfL themselves admit that the policy will result in negligible
reductions in CO2.
I will seek to **reform the Congestion Charge** after the contract changes in 2009,
so it is fairer and more effective. I believe we should move to a flexible pricing
system, so we can more effectively target the worst congestion.
I will do what Ken Livingstone did not, and **listen to Londoners on the Western
extension**. The Western extension was introduced despite the overwhelming
opposition of local residents and I think that was wrong. I will consult the residents in
the zone and on the border on whether we should keep the Western extension, and
**whatever the result I will abide by it.**
As part of reforming the system, **paying the Congestion Charge should be easier.**
The Labour Mayor took over £90 million in fines from the Congestion Charge last
year, and most Londoners will have had the experience of being fined because they
forgot to pay on the day.⁴ This is seen by most Londoners as mean-spirited and
unfair. Over 6 million fines were issued across London last year and I want to do my
bit to ease that burden on Londoners.⁵
Therefore, I will move to an **account-based system**, to make paying the
Congestion Charge more convenient. Londoners will be able to register with TfL and
get sent a bill at the end of every month, and they will be able to pay by direct debit
and other convenient payment methods.
A recent report by TfL detailing the results of a trial allowing motorcycles in bus lanes
showed that there was “a **safety benefit for all vulnerable road users**”⁶, and
suggested that such a measure would encourage greater use of motorcycles – a
mode acknowledged by the Government to be a greener transport alternative.
Instead of being open to new evidence and new ideas, the Labour Mayor has
suppressed this report and interfered with its findings.⁷
⁴ In response to a Freedom of Information request dated February 1ˢᵗ 2008, TfL stated that the total
revenue raised through Penalty Charge Notices in 2006/07 was £94.9 million.
⁵ http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/annualreports.htm
⁶ Transport for London, P2W In Bus Lanes Study, September 2007, Section 6.4, p.37
⁷ A leaked email from the Mayor’s Office to Transport for London stated that the emphasis of
Appendix 3 of the report should be changed completely. Appendix 3 detailed the data which showed a
reduction in collisions between motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. The email also stated; “Much
of it can be taken out altogether.”
I believe we should embrace any measure that has the potential to relieve congestion, especially if new evidence shows it to be safe and effective. Therefore, I will allow **motorcycles in bus lanes**. I believe that motorcycles will help combat congestion, and we should encourage greater use of them.
I believe we should consider **fresh thinking to relieve congestion on public transport**, and consider new modes such as express buses.
There is a particular problem with public transport in the outer boroughs, especially in South London. Many of these areas have suffered from the central London focus of the Labour Mayor, and there are few attractive alternatives to the car for short journeys.
TfL estimate that just under half of all Londoners’ journeys start and end in outer London – a higher share than anywhere else in London.⁸
Poor public transport links means these journeys are predominantly made by car. There is a good reason for this. For example, a journey from Bromley to Sutton covering 11 miles can take up to three interchanges and two hours using public transport. By car it takes just under 30 minutes.⁹
After talking to local people across outer London I believe there is untapped demand for a select number of new direct, frequent, and reliable services to link key locations in South London.
That is why I will commission a trial of **orbital express bus routes for outer London**. I believe they should be designed as a distinct mode of transport, connecting, for example, key rail terminals initially across South London with coach style vehicles and a limited number of stops. The fares should be no more expensive than current bus fares and should include full Oyster access.
I believe this will encourage people to get out of their cars and on to a public transport service that is an attractive alternative.
I also want to **improve the Tube**. In the short-term, we must look again at **air-conditioning on the Tube**. It is incredible that we can make mobile phones as small as credit cards yet still not work out a way to get air-conditioning on the Tube. I want to see air-conditioning on new trains on the sub-surface lines, like the Hammersmith & City Line, Circle Line, Metropolitan Line and District Line. I will order TfL to re-investigate getting air-conditioning on the deep lines, like the Northern Line, Jubilee Line, Bakerloo Line, Piccadilly Line and the Victoria Line.
I want the Tube to open for **one hour later on Friday and Saturday nights**, so Londoners can get home safely late at night.
⁸ Transport for London, Transport 2025, November 2006, p 36
⁹ Timings for public transport taken from the TfL Journey Planner (http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/user/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en) using a departure point of Bromley Civic Centre and an arrival point of Sutton Rail Station.
Timings for the car taken from the RAC Journey Planner (http://routeplanner.rac.co.uk//showrouting.php?map24_sid=UDdDuPoDUysh49Czx6zvZQsiXrNX4Mpy0GMFEAv1sd/b8DXG6lHwFR8FFmmE3fdAR0riJNLhQ6Ku7urN7ONWDw&t=8a46220f223dae76b700ffb67e94121f) using Bromley as the departure point and Sutton as the arrival point.
In the long-term, the review of the PPP contracts in 2010 provides us with the perfect opportunity to prioritise what we want from the Tube. Under my leadership, London Underground’s submission will be focused on upgrading the signals that will enable us to get more trains per hour on all the major lines, and upgrading the track to make the service more reliable.
I will look to reduce the disruption caused by strikes on the Tube by negotiating a **no-strike deal**, in good faith, with the Tube unions.
In return for agreeing not to strike, the unions will get the security provided by having the pay negotiations conducted by an **independent arbiter**, whose final decision will be binding on both parties. I believe this is the **fairest way** to ensure that London is not brought to a stand-still every time there is a pay negotiation, and to ensure union members get a secure deal.
I will continue to support new projects that will relieve congestion in London, in particular Crossrail. I will ensure that this long-overdue and sorely-needed scheme is delivered on time and on budget, and that the same financial calamities that have recently befallen the Tube will not be repeated with Crossrail. I will therefore support **strong independent oversight of Crossrail**.
I support the right of disabled Londoners to get around their city, by ensuring the renewed Routemaster is fully accessible, and ensuring Dial-a-Ride is fully utilised. I will also ensure that no bus will be allowed to leave the garage if their disabled ramps are not working.
Above all, I will stand up for rail commuters in London, and **champion their cause** by working tirelessly with the companies who operate our railways to improve the dire service. I will fight for longer trains, more frequent services, manned stations, better lighting, Oyster at every station and lower fares.
I will support the existing Croydon Tram Link, and call for the Government to grant the funding for the proposed extensions. I will also fight for the **long-term investment** that London needs, for projects such as a tram for Oxford Street, the East London Line Phase 2, future DLR and Transit extensions and Crossrail to Ebbsfleet.
## Making Public Transport Safer and More Secure
An essential pre-requisite to improving our public transport is making it safer.
I have already announced several measures to make public transport more secure in my crime manifesto, ‘*Making London Safer*’, including spending less on press officers and more on police officers to increase their presence on the network.
I will **double the strength of Safer Transport Teams** by releasing money that the Labour Mayor has earmarked for TfL press officers and advertising to be spent on **440 extra PCSOs**, who will patrol the bus network.
I will also **make station platforms in outer London safer**, by releasing money that the Labour Mayor has earmarked for police press officers and advertising to be spent on **50 extra British Transport Police officers** to patrol the worst stations.
I will deal with the minority of under-18s who abuse their right to travel for free on buses. I will withdraw the concession from those who abuse it and expect them to earn it back through a scheme called ‘**Payback London**’, which will involve doing community service with local voluntary groups.
I will crack down on the scourge of illegal minicabs, which congregate around well-known hot spots in the West End and outer London town centres every Friday and Saturday night. Everyone has seen them, and I will ensure there are **more random spot checks** at these venues so there is a real chance of illegal minicabs being caught touting for business.
To guarantee this, I will double the strength of the police Cab Enforcement Unit, investing in **34 more fully-warranted officers** to undertake these spot checks, both in the West End and outer London town centres.
## A Fresh Perspective
Part of the problem we face is that after 8 years, the Labour Mayor is closed to new ideas. I believe part of the solution must be to **embrace new ideas**.
London needs a fresh perspective.
I want to introduce a **21st century Routemaster** that will once again give London an iconic bus that Londoners can be proud of. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that “**only a ghastly de-humanised moron**”[^10] would scrap the Routemaster, and I will renew it for the next generation.
I will commission a competition for the world’s best designers and engineers to design a brand-new Routemaster that is fully compliant with EU legislation, has disabled access and is run on green fuel.
I want to see the next generation Routemaster, with conductors, running on the streets of London by the end of my first term as Mayor.
I also believe we need **fresh thinking about the bendy bus**. The truth is they were never suited to London’s roads and the facts show they have twice as many accidents as normal buses.[^11] In addition, open boarding means they have become known as ‘**free buses**’, and the facts show they lose almost three times as much fare revenue as other types of buses.
When routes that operate these buses come up for renewal, I will set new terms that specify a different type of bus must be used.
I also want London to be a **genuinely cycle-friendly city**. I will introduce a central London cycle hire scheme, so that Londoners will be able to hire a bike at convenient locations across central London. This will provide a genuinely sustainable alternative to the car, and encourage more Londoners to cycle. I will also support 20-mph zones where they are appropriate, and I will **increase cycle parking** by **funding over 10,000 cycle stands**.
[^10]: Ken Livingstone, Mayoral Campaign 2000.
[^11]: See Section 4.
I will **promote greater use of the river**, by making it more integrated into the current system.
For those who are entitled to the Freedom Pass, I will **protect it as an untouchable right**, and I will, unlike the current Labour Mayor, work with the local councils who fund it to make it operational 24 hours a day.
I will also **protect London’s black cab trade**, which has been undermined and neglected by Ken Livingstone, by giving cab drivers formal representation on the TfL Board and working with local councils to synchronise bus lane rules. I will also ensure that pedicabs, or rickshaws, are properly regulated, and are safe for all users.
I will ensure that London’s licensed minicabs are also properly represented, by giving them representation on the TfL Board.
### More Convenient Transport
So much of our time is spent on public transport, and the hallmark of a good transport system is that it is not only reliable, but also convenient and pleasant to use.
The Labour Mayor’s tired administration has lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to work for us. Too often, Ken Livingstone’s TfL does things for its own convenience.
Take, for example, their plan to introduce ‘iBus’ by 2010. They will install GPS tracking devices on every bus in London, so that every bus stop will have electronic boards informing passengers when the next bus is. However, the really useful element they plan to keep to themselves. This new technology will allow them to track where each bus is in real time – but this information will not be publicly available.
Imagine if anyone could access this information, so they know exactly how far down the road their bus is and how long they have to wait. You could look up a live bus map online at home, or on your mobile phone and be able to plan your journey more accurately.
Therefore, I will **introduce live bus mapping** to coincide with the introduction of iBus. There will be an interactive map on the TfL website which will allow users to access a map of their local area, and see where their bus is in real time.
This will enable people to know about any delays immediately, and change their plans accordingly.
I believe that opening access to information like this will be an extra tool for the commuter to **make their lives easier**.
I will **reduce the number of pointless announcements** at open-air Tube stations in order to reduce noise pollution for local residents. More information is one thing, but constantly being told how good the service is despite all evidence to the contrary is annoying and makes the experience worse.
I will also **defend local ticket offices**. Ken Livingstone plans to close a large number of ticket offices at Tube stations, predominantly in outer London because he claims that the increase in Oyster use has made them surplus to requirements. However, what he has not taken into account is that local people feel it is important there is a manned ticket office at their station, as often there are not enough Oyster outlets in the local area.
There has been little consultation with local residents, and I think it is wrong that some local stations could lose this service. I will **stop the planned ticket office closures**, and focus on **increasing the number of Oyster outlets in outer London** so local people have greater access to Oyster.
I also want to introduce a system for Londoners to **renew their travelcards by direct debit**, meaning they will no longer have to queue when they expire.
## A Change For The Better
A vibrant, reliable, pleasant public transport system is vital to the health of our city. It must keep us moving efficiently, so our economy continues to grow. It must be attractive and safe, so there is a sustainable alternative to the car. Above all, it must be responsive to what Londoners actually want.
Londoners are tired of the same old solutions coming from City Hall, dripping with fatigue. Our city needs new ideas, and a Mayor who listens to what Londoners want.
I believe we can improve our buses, trains and Tube, and I believe we can take our city forward into the 21st-century.
I will stand up for commuters and I will pioneer new ideas to **get Londoners moving**.
Boris Johnson
## 1. Putting Commuters First
* I will re-phase traffic lights to get traffic flowing more smoothly
* I will campaign for the Mayor to at last be given the power to fine utility companies who cause delays through badly planned roadworks
* I will not introduce Ken Livingstone’s £25 Congestion Charge and I will make the Congestion Charge fairer and more effective by reforming it when the current contracts expire
* I will hold a new consultation on the Western extension, and abide by the result
* I will seek to re-instate tidal flow at the Blackwall tunnel, to ease congestion in South East London
* I will, on behalf of Londoners, oppose Government plans to increase charges at the Dartford crossing, and lobby for residents in the London boroughs affected to have the same discounts as those proposed for residents in Dartford and Thurrock.
* I will allow motorcycles in bus lanes
* I will trial orbital express buses for outer London, to encourage modal shift in these areas
* I will order TfL to look again at air conditioning on the Tube and I want to see the Tube open one hour later on Friday and Saturday nights
* I will seek to negotiate, in good faith, no strike deals with the Tube unions to end the disruption caused by unnecessary strikes
* I will focus on upgrading the track and signals on the Tube to get a faster, more reliable service
* I will fight for rail commuters, and call an emergency summit with Train Operating Companies to demand longer trains, manned stations at night, more frequent services and lower fares.
## Smoother Flowing Traffic
Initially, the Congestion Charge was a bold idea.
Now, however, it is no longer proving an effective means to tackle congestion. Using TfL’s official measurement, congestion is now above pre-charging levels. The latest TfL figures show that the last bi-monthly yearly average was 2.33 mins/km. The official pre-charging benchmark was 2.3 mins/km, an increase of 0.03 mins/km.13 Last year, TfL admitted that congestion increased by 15% in central London.14 Congestion is getting worse.
Current traffic policies, like re-phasing traffic lights to stay on red for longer, have undermined the original purpose of congestion charging – to get traffic moving. Motorists can tell that traffic lights phase more slowly throughout London now than previously. This is not mere perception: it is a deliberate policy. TfL themselves have admitted that traffic light re-phasing in and around central London has slowed traffic down; “_The overwhelming balance of these interventions is towards those that would measurably reduce effective capacity of the road network for general traffic, thereby increasing congestion or traffic delays._”15
Therefore, as a first step, we will re-phase traffic lights so that they operate to keep traffic moving smoothly.
Tackling congestion will also help encourage modal shift to public transport. Smoother flowing traffic will benefit the buses, making the service more reliable. Ken Livingstone’s traffic management policies have resulted in declining bus reliability.16 We will never achieve sustained modal shift in the long term unless we improve the reliability of public transport – it is the key to long term carbon reduction.
## Roadworks
A major obstacle to keeping traffic moving, in particular buses, is the delays caused by roadworks, especially those which run over their allotted time, or are undertaken at short notice. There is a particular problem with roadworks undertaken by utility companies.
TfL’s own figures show that over the last two years, the duration of roadworks by utility companies has almost doubled.17
13 TfL Surface Advisory Panel February 2008, Managing Director’s Report, p.37
14 TfL Congestion Charging Impacts Monitoring 5th Annual Report, 2007.
15 Ibid p.52
16 The latest TfL congestion charging report states; “_The overall reduction in bus speeds since 2003 has been 11 percent within the central zone, 7 percent on the Inner Ring Road and 8 percent on radial routes close to the central London charging zone. Areas further away from central London have showed a decrease of the order of 2 percent over this period._” Transport for London, Congestion Charging Impacts Monitoring, 5th Annual Report, July 2007, p.59
17 TfL figures accompanying a press release by the Mayor on 13th February 2007. The figures aggregate the total time taken to complete roadworks over the year 2005/06
Despite the Labour Mayor stating in 2002 that he wanted _“powers to be introduced as soon as possible to bring the utility companies into line,”_ he has failed to persuade the Government to give him those powers.
We will campaign for powers to fine utility companies who cause unnecessary delays, and better co-ordinate roadworks between the companies, the boroughs and TfL.
The current system is inadequate. For example, it took almost a year for Ken Livingstone’s TfL to successfully prosecute Thames Water for breaking the rules just once.
TfL took Thames Water to court for the first time for failing to provide notification for streetworks and for not meeting safety requirements.18
Thames Water pleaded guilty on eight counts at Westminster Magistrates Court on Thursday 20th December 2007 and were fined just £8,500, plus costs of £6,500.19
The limitations of this system are all too clear. It currently takes far too long to hold utility companies to account over their infractions.
As of April 2008, regulations for a London Permit Scheme made under the Traffic Management Act 2004 will come into force.20 This will enable TfL to set specific rules for works carried out on their roads, with which utility companies will have to comply in order to be granted a permit.
However, in the event of rules being broken, TfL’s only recourse will be a lengthy court case.
There is a simple solution: the Government should give the Mayor the power to issue immediate Fixed Penalty Notices to utility companies who break the rules. We will urge the Government to do this.
18 Under the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991, utility companies and local authorities are legally required to provide notification to TfL for works that are carried out on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).
19 TfL press release 21st December 2007
20 The Scheme is based on Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (“TMA”) (sections 32 to 39) and the Traffic Management Permit Schemes (England) Regulations 2007. The LOPS would replace the “notice system” under the New Roads and Street Works Act (NRSWA) whereby utility companies inform highway authorities of their intentions to carry out works in their areas. It is proposed that the LOPS is a “Common” permit schemes (in contrast to joint permit schemes) where a number of authorities in London will have developed a common scheme which has a single set of “rules” but which each London borough, operating the scheme, and Transport for London can apply independently to their own roads, subject, of course, to normal cross boundary liaison and co-operation. As individually operated schemes these will require an application and an Order for each participating authority.
## Reducing Emissions
Getting traffic moving more smoothly also reduces emissions. Study after study has shown that cars sitting at traffic lights are a major source of CO2 emissions.²¹
Studies have shown that traffic that is non-moving and congested emits up to 250% more emissions than free-flowing traffic.²²
The lower the speed of moving traffic, the more fuel is consumed and the more pollutants enter the atmosphere.²³
Ken Livingstone’s current policies are not reducing emissions. Air quality in central London is in decline. According to the London Air Quality Network, at their site on Shaftesbury Avenue, emissions of harmful Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide are both higher today than before congestion charging was introduced.²⁴
Our approach recognises the scientific evidence, and focuses on reducing emissions by decreasing congestion. In addition to re-phasing traffic lights we will focus on reducing emissions across the whole of Greater London, by pursuing policies to increase cycling and working with bus companies to ensure the bus fleet runs on the cleanest fuel possible, and expanding the use of hybrid technology.
## A Misplaced Tax
Ken Livingstone plans to charge large family vehicles £25 a day to enter London, while allowing others in for free.
This will not improve congestion or emissions. Ken Livingstone’s own figures show that the reduction in CO2 will be negligible. A report by TfL says that emissions of CO2 from cars would be reduced by as little as 0.3% and in the best case scenario a maximum of 2%.²⁵
By allowing more vehicles in for free, this policy will contribute to increased congestion. There is evidence to suggest that allowing smaller vehicles in for free will cause up to 10,000 extra vehicles per day to enter central London²⁶.
---
²¹ For example in a study from 2007 entitled ‘Get with the Flow’, Swiss Scientists Helbing and Lammer, from the Institute of Transport and Economics at The University of Dresden, stated categorically that better traffic flow led to decreased CO2 emissions. They suggested a fully intuitive traffic control system that uses behavioural algorithms to create better traffic flows. A recent study in Romania conducted by Rutgers University in New Jersey suggested that optimizing traffic flow by making it motorist dependent – rather than slowing motorists down with traffic lights – reduced emissions by around 6.5%.
²² ‘Economics of Traffic Congestion in Dublin’ Clinch and Kelly 2004.
²³ Johansson and Stenman ‘Optimal Road Pricing’.
²⁴ The latest annual mean of PM10 is 43, and for Nitrogen Dioxide it is 80. In 2002 it was 34 and 68 respectively.
http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?statyear=2002&mapview=all®ion=0&site=CD3&postcode=&la_id=&objective=All
²⁵ Measured against TfL’s baseline. ‘Combined Impact Assessment of Proposed Emissions Related Congestion Charging’ August 2007.
²⁶ ‘Green Tax or White Elephant’ CEBR Report, October 2007.
Increased congestion results in increased emissions.27
Furthermore, Ken Livingstone’s £25 per day penalty shows that he has completely lost touch with Londoners. Under the terms of his policy, it is not only so-called ‘Chelsea tractors’ that will pay the charge. Many ordinary family cars, such as the Renault Espace, Volkswagen Golf and Ford Mondeo 2.0 litre will also have to pay the charge28.
We will scrap this charge and focus on tackling emissions through tackling congestion.
### Western Extension – Listening to Londoners
We believe that a convincing case for the Western extension has yet to be made, but more importantly we believe that introducing it in the face of such overwhelming opposition was wrong.
There was always a high level of local opposition to the scheme. Ken Livingstone conducted two separate consultations, and ignored the results of both. The second time he consulted, almost 3 in every 4 residents opposed the plans. Despite such a decisive level of opposition, Ken Livingstone ignored them.29
Ken Livingstone also ignored the views of retailers and small business owners. In 2006, the London Chamber of Commerce, who represent 10,000 businesses of different sizes, conducted a survey of 200 company directors running businesses inside the Western zone. Almost all of them said they expected the Western extension to have a negative impact on their businesses. About three quarters said they expected employment levels in the area to suffer.
We will therefore hold the consultation that Ken Livingstone never did. Upon election, we will launch a new consultation for the residents of the Western extension, and those in the immediately surrounding areas. This time, their views will be listened to.
We pledge to abide by the result of the consultation, whether it is for or against. We believe that it is time that politicians actually listened to people.
### A Fairer, More Effective Congestion Charge
We believe that the Congestion Charge needs reform, and that the 2009 contract changeover provides the perfect opportunity to do so.
We believe the system has the potential to be far more effective than it currently is, and there is real scope to use the next five years of the contract from 2009 to move to a flexible pricing system, to tackle congestion at peak times.
We will also make paying the charge more convenient from 2009, by introducing an account-based system that can be settled by direct debit.
---
27 ‘Economics of Traffic Congestion in Dublin’ Clinch and Kelly 2004.
28 RAC Foundation submission to 2006 TfL Consultation.
29 TfL Report to the Mayor, September 2005, p.5
In October 2007, TfL announced that the contract to administer the charge will move from Capita to IBM in 2009. Although the contract will last for five years, and a future Mayor will be tied to the terms agreed, the precise details of the contract have yet to be made public.30 We call immediately for the Mayor to make the terms public, but until then, we believe that 2009 is a good opportunity to reform how the Congestion Charge operates.
In London, the non-discounted daily charge for non-exempt vehicles is £8, or £7 for fleet vehicles. The charge is increased to £10 if the driver wishes to pay the day after. Failure to pay results in a fine of £120, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, but increased to £180 if unpaid after 28 days.31
The Swedish model provides a model for what reforms might be effective. Stockholm adopted Congestion Charge trials, which started in January 2006 and ended on 31st July 2006. After this, Stockholm voters approved it in a referendum.
The price varies depending on time of day and usage, with a maximum accumulated daily price of around £5.32 At the end of every month, residents are issued with a bill and are given fourteen days in which to pay the charge. 33 If payment is not made after 14 days, an administrative fine of around £5 is imposed. If it still isn’t paid after 30 days, a further 200 Swedish Kronor, around £16, is levied.34
The results of the Stockholm trials in 2006 are cited by the C40 group of cities (of which London is a member) as evidence of best practice.35 It details how the six-month trial saw congestion reduce by 22%, and CO2 emissions by 14%.36 The C40 also highlighted how delays during the morning peak were significantly reduced during the trial.37 In contrast, the fixed rate London system has failed to tackle congestion, especially during the morning peak.38
In addition we need to make the scheme more cost effective by reducing the amount wasted on administration. Official figures show that last year, 65% of Congestion Charge revenue was spent on administration.39
We will fight for value for money for Londoners and better transparency from our contractors, so more of the charge is re-invested into making public transport and the roads better.
30 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7062030.stm
31 All figures from the TfL website
32 http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx
33 In January 2008, 77% paid by direct debit http://www.vv.se/templates/page3wide____22611.aspx
34 http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____21431.aspx#Additional%20charge%20for%20late%20payment
35 http://www.c40cities.org/bestpractices/transport/stockholm_congestion.jsp
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Transport for London, Congestion Charging Impacts Monitoring, 5th Annual Report, July 2007, p.22
39 TfL Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, 2006/07, p.99
## Listening To Londoners On The Blackwall Tunnel
For 29 years, a contra-flow system operated during the morning peak hours in the Blackwall tunnel. That meant there were three lanes of traffic going Northbound from South-East London and Kent into London, and one lane of traffic going South.
On 20th April 2007, TfL terminated that contra-flow operation at something less than 48 hours notice.40
The effect of that was to reduce the capacity on the principal arterial route from South-East London, Kent and even the channel ports into London by one third at the busiest time of day.41
The decision was condemned by the AA, by the RAC Foundation, by the Association of British Drivers, by London Councils (on behalf of all the London boroughs on a cross-party basis), and by other local authorities.42
TfL justified their decision by pointing to an increasing number of 'near misses' in this enclosed environment.43
Yet with all the CCTV and police presence, there were never any prosecutions for dangerous driving in that time.44
The tidal flow system operated at Blackwall for nearly 30 years without major incident. It was a key component in managing the chronic congestion in South-East London.
We recognise that there are legitimate safety concerns surrounding the potential consequences of collisions in the tunnel. We will work with the police to investigate measures on how to improve safety, with the intention of re-instating tidal flow at the earliest opportunity.
## Dartford Crossing
The Government proposes to increase the charge for users of the Dartford crossing by 50%.45 This will affect many residents in London boroughs, such as Bexley, Bromley, Havering and Redbridge who rely on the Dartford crossing.
I will stand up for Londoners and oppose these plans.
The Government also propose to offer discounts and free journeys to residents in Dartford and Thurrock, but not any residents in London.46 It is grossly unfair that on
40 Hansard 17th May 2007 Col 866
41 Hansard 17th May 2007 Col 866
42 Hansard 17th May 2007 Col 867
43 TfL Press Release 20th April 2007
44 Hansard 17th May 2007 Col 866
45 http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/statedartforchargingregime
46 http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/dartthurrockcross/
one hand the charge will be increased, and on the other, Londoners will not get relief
of any kind, despite many residents being forced to divert to the Dartford crossing
because of the reduction in capacity at the Blackwall tunnel. Therefore, I will call on
the Government to expand their discount proposals to the affected London residents.
## Allowing Motorcycles In Bus Lanes
In many cities in Europe and in the UK, it is common practice to allow motorcycles in
bus lanes. By the end of 2006, 17 UK local authorities had introduced the measure in
varying forms. TfL report that the primary reason for the introduction of all these
schemes was to improve road safety.47
Although Ken Livingstone’s own comprehensive study of the practice revealed no
safety concerns, his office has consistently refused to implement the measure.
Ken Livingstone approved a trial of motorcycles in bus lanes in London in September
2002. The trial was to take place on three trial routes, though one, the A13, was
later discounted because the figures were distorted by major roadworks.48
Results from the other two - the A23 in South London and the A41 in North London -
show major safety benefits to all “vulnerable road users”49 when comparing collision
rates on ‘control routes’ where motorcycles were not allowed in bus lanes.50
The report concludes that trial routes saw:
* A 42% reduction in collision rates for all collisions
* A 45% reduction in collisions involving motorcyclists
* A 39% net reduction in pedestrian casualties involved in collisions
* A 44% reduction in collisions involving motorcyclists and pedal cycles51
The trial was originally intended to last 18 months, however after that period TfL
proposed extending the study to gather more data. At this stage, despite the major
concerns of stakeholders, TfL moved the goalposts and changed their control
methodology.52
47 Transport for London, P2W in Bus Lanes Study, September 2007, Executive Summary, p11
48 See ‘Powered Two Wheelers in Bus Lanes: Progress on Experiments’ at p4, the interim report, and
Transport for London, ‘P2W in Bus Lanes Study’, September 2007 (which does not include A13 data).
49 VRUs: pedestrians, cyclists and scooter/motorcycle riders
50 On collision rates the report concludes “there is a safety benefit for all vulnerable road users”.
Transport for London, P2W in Bus Lanes Study, September 2007, Main Report, p37
51 Transport for London, P2W in Bus Lanes Study, September 2007, Main Report, p37
52 Transport for London, P2W in Bus Lanes Study, September 2007, Executive Summary, p3-4. The
Tanner Test uses control data from the entire TLRN.
Using the new methodology, TfL were not able to discern any improvement or deterioration in collision rates. However the report itself flags the limitation of the new methodology as follows: *"What that [the Tanner] method cannot do is allow for any fluctuations in vehicle usage, and therefore cannot account for the impact of migration on the results to be used."*⁵³
This is significant as TfL’s data shows that large numbers of motorcyclists changed their routes into London to take advantage of the trial bus lanes, with motorcycle traffic increasing on the experimental routes by between 25% and 40% and falling by similar amounts on parallel roads that were monitored.⁵⁴
Therefore at worst the study shows that allowing motorcycles in bus lanes has no impact on safety, while at best it shows the policy is likely to result in a significant reduction in all collisions.
Since 2002 many local authorities have embarked on further trials of the scheme. The most significant finding comes from the Eastbound M4 offside bus lane, where allowing motorcycles in the bus lanes resulted in a 67% reduction in motorcyclist injuries, and a 36% reduction in all collisions, despite a simultaneous increase in the speed limit.⁵⁵
## A Fair Deal For Motorcyclists
Increasing the use of motorcycles has been highlighted by the Government as part of their nationwide strategy to tackle congestion and emissions.⁵⁶ The benefits of motorcycle travel over car travel include:
* Reduced congestion
* Easy parking
* Reduced emissions
* Shorter journey times
Given these benefits we would like to encourage a modal shift from cars to motorcycles, and we see allowing motorcycles to access bus lanes as a first step to achieving this.
## Better Buses For Outer London
Public transport in South London currently suffers from unacceptable levels of overcrowding.⁵⁷
⁵³ P2W in Bus Lanes p15
⁵⁴ P2W in Bus Lanes p8
⁵⁵ Transport for London, P2W in Bus Lanes Study, September 2007, Executive Summary, p12
⁵⁶ Transport Strategy on Motorcycles, DfT April 2006
⁵⁷ The Network Rail Route Utilisation Strategy document for South London concluded that, on South London’s train services there was, ‘severe overcrowding occurring during the am peak’, a ‘significant number of trains’ were carrying loads which exceeded normal capacity, and on many routes passengers were standing for ‘close to the 20 minute limit specified by current DfT standards’ p.42.
Most commuters will readily testify that trains running from Southern stations are packed to the brim. Indeed, Ken Livingstone himself has said:
“_Peak hour Underground and National Rail capacity from outer London into central London is inadequate on many corridors, leading to over-crowding on many lines._”^58
Yet the problem is not limited to journeys into inner London. There is also a problem with journeys between town centres in outer London.
TfL estimate that just under half of all Londoners’ journeys start and finish in outer London. Only around a quarter of these are made by public transport.^59
This is because public transport options for orbital journeys are poor by comparison to the car. For example, a journey from Bromley to Sutton covering 11 miles can take up to three interchanges and two hours using public transport. By car it takes just under 30 minutes.^60
The same disparity exists for many other journeys across South London.^61
One of the limitations of the public transport network in outer London is the lack of direct and convenient orbital routes. For example, according to the TfL Journey Planner it is currently impossible for south Londoners to get from Bexley to Richmond, without first going in to central London. In fact, many orbital routes are only made accessible by making a radial journey into central London.^62
The lack of adequate public transport means people in outer London are forced to rely on their cars. TfL’s figures show that in central London, cars and vans are only used by 10% of people as the main mode to work. This rises to 64% in outer London.^63
It is clear that we will never achieve modal shift in these areas unless we provide quality, convenient alternatives.
We need a fresh approach to improve public transport in outer London. In the long-term we will campaign for the East London Line Phase 2 which will provide a complete orbital rail service.
58 Mayor’s Draft Transport Strategy, chapter 2 paras 2.86-2.90
59 Ibid
60 Timings for public transport taken from the TfL Journey Planner (http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/user/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en) using a departure point of Bromley Civic Centre and an arrival point of Sutton Rail Station.
Timings for the car taken from the RAC Journey Planner (http://routeplanner.rac.co.uk//showrouting.php?map24_sid=UDdDuPoDUysh49Czx6zvZQsiXrNX4Mpy0GMFEAv1sd/b8DXG6lHwFR8FFmmE3fdAR0riJNLhQ6Ku7urN7ONWDw&t=8a46220f223dae76b700ffb67e94121f) using Bromley as the departure point and Sutton as the arrival point.
61 Other examples researched include; a journey from Sutton to Wimbledon, for example, covering just 5 miles takes at best two public transport modes and almost three quarters of an hour. By car it takes just under 15 minutes. A journey from Bexley to Sutton covering around 40 miles takes at best three public transport interchanges and can take up to 3 hours. By car it takes just under an hour. A journey from Bexley to Croydon covering around 25 miles takes at best one public transport interchange and can take up to 2 hours. By car it takes around 45 minutes.
62 See TfL Journey Planner for more examples
63 Mayor’s transport facts and figures. Accessible at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/transport/facts-and-figures.jsp
In the short-term we will commission a trial of orbital express bus routes for outer London, connecting key hubs and consult widely with local residents and councils before tendering them on a trial basis.
These will be express buses, connecting key transport hubs in the outer boroughs. In order to keep the service at an optimum speed, they will be limited to two or three stops along each route.
These new express routes should be designed as a distinct mode of transport, connecting, for example, key rail terminals initially across South London with coach style vehicles. The fares should be no more expensive than they are now on buses and include full Oyster access.
This will encourage people to get out of their cars and onto a public transport service that is an attractive alternative.
If successful, we will expand this to other parts of north London.
We will also work closely with private coach companies who provide commuter coach services direct from outside London into central London, to see how they can serve outer London and further relieve congestion on overcrowded rail routes.
## **Faster Track: Better Rail and Tube Services**
Londoners have had to hear the same excuses on the Tube for too long. For example, it is not good enough that air conditioning has still not happened, or that the Tube doesn’t run later on Friday and Saturday nights.
Despite limitations on the deep surface lines, there is still scope to include air conditioning on new trains on the sub-surface lines. Therefore the designs for new trains on these lines planned to be delivered should include proposals for air-conditioning.
However, we should not accept defeat on the deep surface lines. TfL will be ordered to re-investigate installing air conditioning on lines such as the Northern Line, Piccadilly Line, Jubilee Line, Victoria Line and Bakerloo Line.
It would be a major benefit to Londoners if the Tube ran one hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, and we want to see this happen.
Chronic mismanagement of the London Underground PPP has contributed to the collapse of Metronet, and has resulted in a new period of uncertainty about how the Tube will be upgraded to solve the overcrowding and delays.
The collapse of Metronet has been a disaster, and the challenge we now face is how to ensure that the Tube continues to receive the investment it requires, that farepayers are not further penalised for TfL’s mismanagement, and that future projects are managed better.
Metronet was one entity within the PPP responsible for administering the Tube maintenance and infrastructure upgrades. It promised to spend £17 billion to improve the ageing network during its 30-year contract.64
London Underground reportedly paid Metronet £70 million per month of taxpayers’ money from the start of its contract, until its collapse in July 2007.65
Mismanagement of the contracts by both London Underground and Metronet led to massive overspends. Metronet was criticised by the PPP Independent Arbiter, Chris Bolt, for its poor performance66. London Underground was criticised for not taking action sooner.67
In June 2007, Metronet estimated that there would be a £2 billion overspend by 2010. Therefore, Metronet decided to trigger the Extraordinary Review clause in the contract and applied for an extra £550m to pay for budget over-runs. However, the PPP Independent Arbiter was highly critical of the company’s management and refused to grant the full amount.68
His draft decision in July triggered Metronet's slide into hugely costly administration. The Government has estimated that the first six months of administration, from July 18th last year, cost £345.5 million or £14.4 million per week.69
Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, has admitted that the final cost of Metronet's administration is uncertain. It is also uncertain how much of these costs will fall on the London fare-payer.70
The collapse of Metronet has resulted in TfL taking direct control of the Metronet contracts.
TfL has also provided a loan facility of up to £900 million to the Metronet administrator, and is providing for the full amount of the loan in its 2007/08 expenditure.71 Though TfL is making efforts to recover this loan, the Mayor has recognised the “possibility that some or all of the loan will not be recoverable.”72
64 www.metronetrail.com
65 See BBC London Feature ‘Metronet’s Bid for £1 billion’
66 Guidance note on PPP Arbiter Interim Level of ISC, Pending ISC at Extraordinary Review, p18.
67 ‘When the bids for the PPP contracts were being assessed, it should have been possible for the Government and London Underground... to foresee Metronet’s proposed tied supply chain model... did not include necessary safeguards.’ Transport Select Committee Report on the PPP, p18.
68 Extraordinary Review of Metronet BCV Rail Ltd. 16 July 2007
69 Parliamentary Question 176782: Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost has been of running Metronet since it went into administration. Ms Rosie Winterton: In addition to their infrastructure service charge payments the Metronet companies receive money to cover their operating deficit. The PPP administrator stated in September that the net operating deficit of Metronet while in administration was £14.4 million per week, a projection of £345.5 million for six months of administration.
70 Hansard, 15 January 2008 Col. 1088W
71 Report to Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee meeting on 18 October 2007, Functional Bodies’ quarterly monitoring report, page 57
72 Mayoral Approval MA3150, 17 July 2007
The collapse of Metronet has put the planned Tube investment at risk.
It is clear from the details that the process suffered due to London Underground mismanagement and mishandling by Ken Livingstone.
Leading academic from the London School of Economics, Tony Travers, summarised the situation succinctly when he said:
‘_…between £5-7.5 billion has been spent on the Tube in the last five years, which is a huge amount of money to have delivered – at the very best – a service that’s overall no different from when we begun. There are some new tiles on stations but there is no real sense for the passenger that the system is getting better despite a huge amount of money being spent. It’s very difficult to judge what happened to all that money._’73
To prevent mistakes in the future, we need to strengthen the role of the Independent Arbiter. The Transport Select Committee agreed that if the Arbiter had been able to intervene at an earlier stage then he may have been able to help prevent Metronet’s slide into administration.74
It is also vital that the promised upgrades will continue to be funded and will actually happen.
We believe that the PPP review in 2010 is a golden opportunity to prioritise what we need from the Tube in the future. The review will set the strategic direction for the next seven and a half years, and we want to use this to ensure the focus is on upgrading the signals and tracks that will deliver a more reliable service, and more trains per hour.
The Labour Government and the Labour Mayor made a colossal strategic error by focusing on the mainly cosmetic changes to stations in the first seven and half years of the PPP. We believe that the priority should have been signal and track upgrades, because what Londoners need most is a quick, reliable service.
Neither Ken Livingstone nor TfL have accepted responsibility for the Metronet debacle. Crossrail is set to be administered under a PPP arrangement. We must make sure that this long-overdue and sorely-needed scheme is delivered on time and on budget. The same fate that befell Metronet must not befall Crossrail.
## Getting Things Done On Rail
The Mayor currently has no control over the management of London’s rail services.75 However, we will not use this as an excuse to shirk responsibility. The Mayor should stand up for Londoners on every issue that affects the city, whether he has direct control or not.
73 Tony Travers, “Is this a new Metronet Timebomb,” Evening Standard October 2007
74 Transport Select Committee Report on the PPP, p26.
75 With the exception of the North London Line, which the Government has given him the power to set the terms of the franchise.
In the first instance, the Mayor has behind-the-scenes influence when the
Department for Transport sets the franchise terms, and we will stretch this as far as
we need to in order to deliver more capacity and safer stations.
We will also convene an emergency public summit of all the train operating
companies in London and Government representatives, in our first few weeks in City
Hall to ensure action is taken to solve chronic overcrowding, the issue of exorbitant
pricing and the availability of Oyster at every station.
### Striking Out Unnecessary Strikes
Currently, disputes between the unions and London Underground frequently result in
strikes, severely inconveniencing Londoners.76 We want to introduce no-strike deals,
and bind London Underground to independent arbitration when negotiating pay
settlements.
In addition to the massive disruption to ordinary Londoners, industrial action also has
a huge cost to the London economy. For example, the strike in 2004 is estimated to
have cost £60 million in lost productivity.77
The London Underground is like no other public service, in that strikes can paralyse
the whole city. This is why a special arrangement needs to be implemented to
protect Londoners from disagreements between London Underground management
and union leaders.
A no-strike agreement is a voluntary, private contract between a union and an
employer, which agrees ‘in principle’, that unions will not stage strikes. In return for
this agreement London Underground would pledge to submit pay negotiations to
independent arbitration.
This is not removing the right to strike, as the agreement is voluntary and requires
both sides to support it.
As part of the agreement, the Mayor would voluntarily absolve himself of any power
to direct the Arbiter, and we would consult the unions on the best way to appoint the
arbiter to ensure fairness and transparency.
We believe that this is the fairest way to protect Londoners against unnecessary
industrial action, and the fairest way to ensure ordinary union members get the long
term job security they need.
76 The London Assembly Transport Committee has calculated that between the creation of the
Greater London Authority in May 2000 and January 2006, there have been fourteen cases of
industrial action, which have led to disruption of services. London Assembly Transport Committee
Report, “Striking a Balance” January 2006.
77 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=axq2Gq3MkVTM&refer=europe
## 2. Making Trains, Buses and Stations Safer
* I will require under-18s who have had their free bus travel withdrawn for anti-social behaviour to earn it back through voluntary and community service
* I will double the strength of Safer Transport Teams, by releasing funding for approximately 440 extra PCSOs to patrol the buses and 50 more fully-warranted British Transport Police officers to patrol the worst suburban stations
* I will make buses safer by running a trial of live CCTV
* I will focus on reducing fare evasion by directing the MPA and TfL to investigate giving Revenue Protection Inspectors more powers
* I will crack down on illegal minicabs by doubling the strength of the Cab Enforcement Unit, from 34 officers to 68
### Restorative Justice
At present, under-18s can travel on the buses for free in London. This is a great investment and has provided welcome financial relief to parents across London. However, there are still problems with a minority of under-18s who abuse their privilege.
TfL figures show that the incidents of code red calls made by bus drivers in London specifically due to anti-social behaviour increased from 472 cases in August 2005 (the month before free travel was introduced) to 697 cases in October 2006 – the latest available figures.78
However, Ken Livingstone has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the increase in anti-social behaviour, despite the figures confirming that on average from April 2003 to September 2005, drivers made 432 code red calls per month.79 Following the introduction of free travel for under-16s in September 2005 the average number of code red calls made by drivers per month specifically relating to anti-social behaviour increased to 535.80
Between the start of the scheme in September 2005 and July 2007, only 394 passes have been _permanently_ withdrawn from under-18s and 16s, despite the scheme having run for almost two years.81
The London Assembly Transport Committee found at the beginning of the year that crime on buses increased by just over 17% between 2004/05 and 2006/07.82
78 Transport for London, Surface Advisory Panel Papers, Managing Director’s Report, Jan 2007 p16.
79 In February 2007, he told the London Assembly; “_There is no increase in anti-social behaviour_.”
80 Transport for London, Surface Advisory Panel Papers, Managing Director’s Report, Jan 2007 p.36.
81 Written answer to Mayoral Question, 1834/2007, 18th July, 2007.
82 The London Assembly Transport Committee, The London Buses: Are things getting better?, February 2007, p.14.
And violent crime on buses increased last year by 3.4%.^83
The TfL Behaviour Code defines anti-social behaviour as:
‘Using offensive or threatening language; smoking; playing music out loud;
damaging or defacing an Oyster photocard; physical or verbal assault;
unlawfully carrying a weapon and drug use.’^84
We believe that a fresh approach is required. We intend to launch a scheme called **‘Payback London’**, whereby under-18s will have their passes permanently withdrawn for breaking the Behaviour Code and they will have to participate in community service to earn it back.
TfL, in consultation with local councils, will draw up a list of trusted and approved community voluntary groups (who have already completed CRB checks). Errant under-18s will be expected to complete a minimum number of hours service with these groups, in order to earn back their free travel.
## Police Officers, Not Press Officers
Ken Livingstone has put a premium on advertising and hiring more press officers. It is a fact that he now has more press officers than the Prime Minister.^85
TfL forecast that they will spend £66 million on advertising, marketing and communications in 2007/08. This is an overspend of 65% on their original budget of £40 million.^86 We propose to cap their spending in real terms, raising it to £67.3 million, rather than the £84 million Mr Livingstone wants.^87 £16.5 million of the money saved will be redirected to the existing Safer Transport Teams and will pay for an additional 440 PCSOs (approximately), doubling their strength.^88
Safer Transport Teams are assigned to a borough. Each team currently consists of 18 PCSOs, two Sergeants and one Police Constable.
Currently, 21 boroughs have a Safer Transport Team. This gives 441 officers, comprising 378 PCSOs and 63 fully-warranted officers.^89
By releasing money earmarked for advertising and press officers, we will double the strength of Safer Transport Teams, and we will ensure that these extra officers are specifically assigned to patrol the bus network; providing visible reassurance and
[^82]: London Assembly Transport Committee, Crime and Disorder on London’s Buses, p.8, January 2008.
[^83]: TfL press release 20^th November 2007, using combined six month figures (April-September) for the years 2006 and 2007.
[^84]: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresandtickets/1063.aspx
[^85]: See The White Book, Central Office Information, for details of the Prime Minister’s Press Office. Details of Ken Livingstone’s press office, almost three times as large, can be found in the GLA Budget Committee Pre-Budget Report, December 2007.
[^86]: GLA Group Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09; Consultation Document, p 82. http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/budgmtgs/2007/dec19/item06a.pdf
[^87]: GLA Group Budget Report 08/09 at p82.
[^88]: £150,000 of the additional money saved will also be used to fund the trial of live CCTV on buses.
[^89]: Ibid. at p20.
supporting Revenue Protection Inspectors to take the names and addresses of fare dodgers.
This increase in resources is required to tackle the growing problem of crime on buses. There was an increase in the absolute number of reported bus-related crimes between 2005 and 2006. Crime remains 15% (06/07 figures) above 2004/05 levels.⁹⁰
Figures show that 65% of people have experienced or witnessed anti-social behaviour in the last two years.⁹¹
More importantly, Metropolitan Police figures show that violent crime on buses increased by 3.4% last year.⁹² Londoners no longer feel safe on buses, which is why we will prioritise resources to fund extra police and take action.
## Making Suburban Stations Safer
Several train stations do not have adequate levels of safety provision. The London Assembly Transport Committee has recently expressed its dismay at the ‘glaring loopholes (that) were often left in the security network’.⁹³ In 2005, there were 12,360 crimes reported on the rail network.⁹⁴
Most Londoners would agree that it is not uncommon to find many outer London station platforms unmanned after a certain time at night.
The British Transport Police cover a large rail network that extends way beyond London, with a mere 427 fully-warranted officers and 303 PCSOs and support staff.⁹⁵
The British Transport Police form a nationwide police presence dealing with issues of transport crime and trespass.⁹⁶
In 2003/04, 15,208 offences were committed at overground stations. By 2005/06, that figure had grown to 19,303.⁹⁷
This is why we will release £3.1 million that has been earmarked for MPS advertising and spin doctors to put towards funding, approximately, an extra 50 fully-warranted officers.⁹⁸ We will specify that these new officers must patrol suburban station platforms, in particular the stations with the highest levels of crime.
---
⁹⁰ Transport for London, Community Safety Plan 2007/8 p14.
⁹¹ Ibid.
⁹² TfL press release 20ᵗʰ November 2007, using combined six month figures (April-September) for the years 2006 and 2007.
⁹³ Crime and Safety on London’s Suburban Railway Stations’ London Assembly Transport Committee p1.
⁹⁴ Ibid. p.2.
⁹⁵ Ibid. p.15 at 2005.
⁹⁶ www.btp.police.uk/about.htm
⁹⁷ Crime and Safety on Suburban Railway stations p9.
⁹⁸ This gives a total of £3.1 million, and we know that the MPA are putting the full cost of a police officer at £54,000 – this includes kits and non-pay costs, as well as salary. Based on those numbers we could provide an estimated 57 additional officers. Provision of Additional Police Officers on Boroughs, MPA, 10ᵗʰ January 2008.
This money will be found by cutting the number of press officers employed at the MPS, and reducing the MPS spend on non-recruiting publicity. Currently the MPS employs 73 press staff with salary costs of £3.6 million,99 and is budgeted to spend £4 million on non-recruitment publicity in 2008/09.100 By reducing the number of press staff to 50, and halving the publicity spend, we will redirect £3.1 million from marketing and spin to frontline policing.101
We will work with local Borough Commanders on the ground and Train Operating Companies to identify the worst stations, and we will specify that the extra officers must be assigned to them.
We will also seek to reclaim the space in front of train stations by working with boroughs and Train Operating Companies to investigate possible improvements both in the presentation of the stations and in the way that improvements are designed.
## Cracking Down On Fare Evasion
Punish the smaller offences and the larger offences will diminish. This principle has been deployed across the globe to great effect. The most famous example is perhaps that of New York, where a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ – the fastidious punishment of supposedly lower order offences – has enabled the New York Police Department to build persistent offender profiles, source information and solve the most serious crimes more quickly. A major plank of the New York success was in addressing fare evasion.
In London, we have a particular problem with fare evasion on bendy buses. Although TfL insists that fare evasion on bendy buses is falling, Ken Livingstone’s own figures reveal the opposite.
In 2006, fare evasion rose from 2.3% to 3.18% on conventional buses. The cost to the taxpayer was up from £28 million to £36.7 million.102 Latest figures show bendy buses lose almost three times as much revenue as other buses.103 Revenue loss on bendy buses alone in 2006 was £8 million. This represents a total loss of £46.7 million. This works out at around £1 million per week in lost revenue for the period covered.104
TfL’s approach to fare evaders is wholly inadequate. There is a greater focus on PR and advertising campaigns than on the strong practical measures that are necessary. The main penalty for fare evasion is a fine. The penalty fare on most
99 Policing London 2008-11 Business plan, Draft Version 2.10, p 39.
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/f/071119-05joint-appendix1.pdf
100 MPA/MPS Draft Corporate Business Plan 2008-11 - Supporting Financial Submission, p17.
101 The 3.1million breaks down as follows. We reduce 73 press officers to 50. This saving is a 32% reduction in total pay and overtime costs from £3,607m to £2,471m, a saving of £1,136m. We save a further 2.0 million by then cutting down spend on non-recruitment publicity from £4,000m to £2,000m: MPA Finance Committee Report 07/08 Joint Appendix 1 p17, Joint Appendix 2 p39 respectively.
102 Question 0076 / 2007, Mayoral Questions.
103 TfL Surface Advisory Panel Report 15th February 2008 at p10.
104 Ibid.
forms of transport is £20, with a fine of £1,000 for non-payment.105 This assumes
that the fine is enforced in the first place.
However, TfL deploys only around 300 Revenue Protection Inspectors on its entire
bus network, 200 Revenue Control Officers on the Underground and around 200
traffic enforcement staff. Considering buses alone, with 7,700 normal buses and 300
bendy buses,106 this amounts to a minimal chance of being caught – and offenders
know it. Route 18, for example, from Harrow through Wembley triangle and
surrounding areas, has been nicknamed ‘the free bus to central London.’107
Doubling the strength of Safer Transport Teams by adding around 400 PCSOs will
enable us to crack down on fare evasion. In addition to providing a visible uniformed
presence on the buses, they would also complement the work of Revenue Protection
Inspectors, providing back-up and support to catch more fare dodgers.
Another way to reduce fare evasion would be to beef up the powers of Revenue
Protection Inspectors. Currently, when a Revenue Protection Inspector finds an
offender, he or she must call the police before they can compel a name or address to
be given.
We believe that this arrangement is inadequate, and we will direct the MPA to
investigate, in partnership with TfL, giving Revenue Protection Inspectors greater
powers including those to take names and addresses to hold more fare dodgers to
account.
Specifically, this would be the ‘power to require the name and address of a person
acting in an anti-social manner.’ This would require the Chief Officer of the
Metropolitan Police, (in this case the Commissioner) designating each Revenue
Protection Inspector with the powers of Schedule 4 pt. 1, under those granted to him
by s.38 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
## Live CCTV On Buses
We have already committed to spending £150,000 on a live CCTV trial for 20 of the
most dangerous bus routes in London.108 This trial will run over a 6-month period to
assess the success of the scheme before rolling it out across the network.
The 20 trial routes will be chosen subject to consultation with the Metropolitan Police
who will identify the routes with the most consistent record of trouble.
The purchase of the new equipment currently runs at £3,000-£3,500 per bus. The
running cost per bus per month is around £45 depending on how many buses roll out
the scheme.109
105 TfL’s penalty fare schedule.
106 GLA Press Release, 3-10-2005 476.
107 Question 3116 / 2007, Mayoral Questions.
108 See section 3.
109 All figures courtesy of Integrated Security Solutions.
The technology would enable existing operators to instantly access real-time, live CCTV whenever they receive a code red call. This would allow them to immediately prioritise which calls required emergency police assistance. In addition, police officers can dial into the system using a code and see what is going on in real-time using their mobile phones. They can then record the footage in real time, and use this as instant evidence rather than currently having to wait for the bus companies to send them a DVD of recorded footage, which wastes huge amounts of time.
In June 2004, when Ken Livingstone was elected for a second term, there were 387 code red calls for anti-social behaviour on buses.110 In October 2006, the number was 697, an increase of 80%.111 Equivalent figures are not available in the November report, although it was noted that youth crime and anti-social behaviour remain the number one issue on the network.
Crime remains a major problem on buses. In the last year violent crime, drugs and fraud have increased on buses. Violent crime has gone up by 3.4% and drug offences by 66.3%.112 Tackling this issue is an immediate priority.
## Illegal Minicabs
We need to get tough on illegal minicabs. According to Ken Livingstone’s own figures, in London on average 10 women each month are sexually attacked by drivers of illegal minicabs.113
The illegal minicab trade also serves as a gateway to other serious crimes. A documentary by the BBC estimated that the turnover of the trade was £1 billion, and linked this black market industry to others, including illicit weapons, drugs and other high level crimes.114
Therefore by cracking down on illegal minicabs we can help protect women from sexual assault, and make inroads on other serious crimes too.
Recently, Ken Livingstone’s approach has been to produce awareness-raising advertising campaigns. However, in the past there have been several high-profile instances of effective police SWAT-style operations conducted to crack down on illegal minicabs.
For example, in Hackney, on 29th-30th July 2004, the City of London police launched an operation to quell the rise of illegal minicabs. 24 Fixed Penalty notices were issued and four cabs were taken off the road altogether for being unsafe. Evidence was also collected of other illegal activities taking place alongside these illegal minicabs such as cannabis possession.115
110 TfL Surface Advisory Panel Report, January 2007, p16.
111 Ibid.
112 TfL press release 20th November 2007, using combined six month figures (April-September) for the years 2006 and 2007.
113 TfL campaign 12th December 2006.
114 The Money Programme: Illegal Minicabs, broadcast 2002.
115 City of London Police Press Release ‘Illegal Minicabs’ 2004.
It is this kind of high-profile crackdown that sends strong signals to illegal minicabs that there is good chance they will be caught.
In the first instance, we propose to double the number of fully-warranted police officers in the Cab Enforcement Unit to deal directly with the problem.116
In 2007-08 TfL is expected to spend £90 million on professional and consultancy fees. This is an overspend of 23% on the original budget, described by the London Assembly Budget Committee as an ‘enormous’ proportional increase which TfL have failed to justify. 117 Far from reducing this increasing spend, the Mayor has increased the 2008-09 budget to £115 million. This means it will be 58% larger than the 2007-08 budget, and still 28% larger than the 2007-08 spend.
The London Assembly Budget Committee points to ‘insufficiently vigilant management’ regarding the spiralling spend on consultants, and recommends that further scrutiny might be required.118 We suggest reducing the inflated 2008-09 budget by £5m. This would leave a budget of £110 million for consultants.
Of this £5 million, £2 million would be redirected to TfL’s TOCU funding. This would provide enough money for an additional 34 officers – doubling the strength of the Cab Enforcement Unit. 119
We need visible, highly publicised crackdown operations, in the manner of Hackney in 2004 and others since. Adding additional police officers will facilitate this.
We will also be tougher on illegal touting. Currently, licensed minicabs are not allowed to ply for hire on the street, they must be pre-booked. A recent scrutiny by the London Assembly Transport Committee found that taxi touts are not getting the punishment they deserve. It found that courts are not applying the maximum penalties for touting. Touting carries a maximum penalty of £2,500, however TfL gave evidence to the Committee that stated that the average fine for touting was just £150 and that just 10% of those convicted for touting had their licences revoked.120
We will immediately revoke the taxi licences of all those caught touting.
116 There are currently 34 fully warranted police officers in the Cab Enforcement Unit. TfL, Safer Transport at Night, June 2006, p.8.
117 Budget Committee’s response to the Mayor of London’s ‘GLA Group Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09 Consultation Document’, p.2.
118 Budget Committee’s response to the Mayor of London’s ‘GLA Group Budget Proposals and Precepts 2008-09 Consultation Document’, p18.
119 The MPA estimate that the full cost of a police officer is £54,000 - this include kits and non-pay costs, as well as salary. Based on those numbers we could provide an estimated 34 additional officers. Provision of Additional Police Officers on Boroughs, MPA, 10th January 2008.
120 London Assembly Transport Committee, Taxi Touting in London, March 2008, p.16.
## 3. Fresh Perspectives on Transport
* I will end the era of the bendy bus by scrapping them
* I will launch a competition to produce a new, iconic London bus, a 21st century Routemaster with conductors, of which Londoners can be proud
* I make London a genuinely cycle-friendly city by introducing a central London cycle hire scheme and increasing the number of cycle parks
* I will use my influence as Chair of the MPA to ensure the police take cycle theft more seriously
* I will encourage better integration of river services
* I will protect London’s cab trade
### The End of an Error
We will end the era of the bendy bus.
Bendy buses lose almost three times as much revenue as other buses,¹²¹ and have twice as many collisions with pedestrians and cyclists than other buses.¹²² The bendy bus is highly unsuitable for London’s narrow roads; it often causes the congestion it was introduced to alleviate by blocking junctions and causing collisions.
When routes that operate these buses come up for renewal, we will set new terms that specify a different type of bus must be used.
### Renewing The Routemaster
We will launch a competition to design a 21st century Routemaster. Londoners want an iconic bus that they can identify with. Public transport is about more than just a series of numbers or targets. Londoners deserve buses that are reliable but also enjoyable to ride, safe, and moreover emblematic of our great city.
We will invite designs for a renewed Routemaster from the world’s leading designers.
TfL will decide on the final shortlist, depending on strict criteria, and the Mayor will take advice from TfL on which design should be commissioned.
¹²¹ TfL Surface Advisory Panel Report 15ᵗʰ February 2008 at p10.
¹²² In 06/07, there were 5.6 pedestrian injuries per million miles operated on bendy buses. There were only 2.6 pedestrian injuries per million miles operated on other bus types. In 06/07 there was a total of 1751 accidents on bendy buses. In 06/07 there were 2.62 collisions with cyclists per million miles operated on bendy buses, and only 0.97 collisions with cyclists per million miles operated on other bus routes.
We aim to have new Routemasters, with conductors, running in London by the end
of our first term.
## The Cycle Strategy
An important part of tackling congestion is getting more Londoners walking and
cycling. Although progress has been made, there is still much to do. We are
determined to see many more Londoners cycling, so we will make it safer and more
convenient to cycle.
London should be a genuinely cycle-friendly city. We are serious about making
changes to achieve this. Cycling produces major benefits in terms of public health,
as well as freeing up capacity on other types of public transport.
Real change will come from real leadership, from a Mayor who understands what it
is like to cycle in London.
### Velib-Style Bike Hire Scheme
We want to allow as many Londoners as possible to experience the many personal
and civic benefits of cycling.
Getting around town quickly and cheaply will become much easier when London has
a bicycle hire scheme. We will broker a deal with a private company to bring
thousands of bikes to the capital at no cost to the taxpayer.
Similar schemes in Paris, Copenhagen, Barcelona and Brussels and have all proved
hugely successful.
As the scheme in Paris has demonstrated, commercial firms are happy to shoulder
the costs of this type of scheme.
The Parisian Velib scheme was launched on July 15th 2007. 10,000 bicycles were
introduced to the city with 750 hire points each with 15 or more bikes/spaces. The
system is financed and operated by advertising company JCDecaux.123
Other such schemes are operational in other cities, using different models.124 In
Copenhagen, a not-for profit foundation has operated a free open access bike
scheme seasonally since 1995 and six German cities are served by Call-a-Bike
which is run by Deutsche Bahn.
All avoid the risks of city bike rental schemes by making users liable for a big fine if
bikes are not returned or kept on hire. Most use heavy bikes designed for very low
maintenance.125
123 Velib Press Release, Mairie de Paris 200, p.2.
124 As of 2007, similar schemes are also in effect in other European cities, including Aix-en-Provence,
Barcelona (Bicing), Brussels, Copenhagen, Lyon (Vélo'v), Stockholm, Pamplona (Cemusa), OYBike,
Call a Bike (Berlin, Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich, Karlsruhe), Copenhagen/Helsinki/Aarhus
(CIOS), Oslo, Sandnes, Seville (Sevici) and Vienna.
125 Velib Press Release
## Combating Cycle Crime
The latest figures at TfL show that cycle thefts are on the up.126
Building confidence in commuting by bike is a key aim of reducing cycle crime. Once an individual has their bike stolen, they are far less likely to cycle in future. Studies have suggested that as many as 24% of cyclists who experience bicycle theft stop cycling altogether, and the remaining 66% cycle less often.127
Currently, a cycle is stolen every 71 seconds in England.128 There were 80,000 bicycles stolen in the capital last year.129
Once a cycle has been stolen, it is highly unlikely to be recovered. TfL estimate that fewer than 5% of stolen cycles are returned to their owners.130 Therefore, as well as being an inconvenience, stolen bikes also represent a significant cost to London’s cyclists.
One means of dealing with cycle theft is to provide more secure cycle parking.
For example, Finsbury Park operates a staffed and covered cycle park, consisting of 125 automated lockable cycle racks operated by a smart card system, which opened in March 2006. It boasts 24 hour access to smart card holders, with cycles being charged 50p for 24 hour parking.131
We can also learn a lot from the experience of New York. There, the Department of Transportation (DoT) operates a City Racks programme. This innovative scheme provides free pavement bicycle parking racks throughout New York City to encourage cycling for commuting, short trips and errands. So far almost 3,000 cycle racks have been installed.132
We will follow the New York example and provide funding for more cycle parks for London. We would divert £2 million from the total £5 million saved from consultancy fees towards increasing the provision of cycle parking around the city. This could, for example, pay for procuring and installing 13,000 Sheffield stands (enough parking for 26,000 bicycles), or 1,250 secure cycle cages (with parking for 15,000 bicycles).133
---
126 TfL, Avoiding Theft, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/988.aspx
127 St Martin’s Tackles Cycle Theft, *Design Week 2007*, http://www.designweek.co.uk/Articles/133911/St+Martins+tackles+cycle+theft.html. From research conducted by Gamman, Thorpe, Willcocks, 2004, ‘BikeOff/The Design out Crime Research Centre, University of Arts, London.’
128 Slam the breaks on cycle theft, Halifax General Insurance, 12 April 2006.
129 TfL, Avoiding Theft, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/988.aspx
130 TfL, Avoiding Theft, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/988.aspx
131 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/978.aspx
132 New York City Biking, http://www.bikeroute.com/NBGBikingCities/NewYorkCity/NYCBiking.php
133 According to the Department of Transport the cost of procuring and installing a Sheffield Stand is around £135, we have based our calculations on a cost of £150. Similarly the DoT estimate that the cost of a cycle cage with a key or combination lock system will be around £1,500 for 12 bikes, we have used £1,600 in our calculation. Department for Transport, *Cycling to Work*, *Traffic Advisory Leaflet*, p.6.
Additionally we will prioritise cycling in the London Plan. While car parking is given
its own Policy Guidance in the London Plan, secure cycle parking is included only as
part of the wider strategy on cycling. Secure cycle parking must become a priority
within the London Plan, so that secure cycle parking in new developments becomes
the norm. It is clear we need a fresh approach which is why for the first time cycling
will have its own Policy Guidance in our amended London Plan, putting it on an
equal status to secure car parking.
By doing this, we will send a strong signal that the developments of the future must
have secure cycling parking as standard.
## The River
The Thames offers a remarkable opportunity to relieve congestion on existing
transport networks.
We consider the river to be a vital part of an integrated transport strategy. River
services are reliable and can reduce congestion on other modes of public
transport.134
River services are administered by London River Services on behalf of TfL. They do
not operate any services directly.135 Instead they tender contracts to privately owned
service operators. However, TfL have relegated river services far down their list of
priorities. The London Assembly Transport Committee has described their approach
as ‘vague and unspecific’.136 Their scrutiny, “London’s Forgotten Highway”
concluded that London River Services are not getting the strategic direction from TfL
to take advantage of London’s river.
There are certainly obstacles to providing better river transportation. For example,
the ownership of piers is fragmented. Eight piers are owned by London River
Services, four by public bodies and 11 are under private ownership. Thames Clipper,
one of the operators, also report that pier fees have gone up on average 150% in the
last two years.137
We believe that support for the river is not a question of committing to substantial
amounts of new public subsidy. It is more a question of strong political support and
better integration into existing services.
We propose simple measures, like integrating Pay As You Go Oyster, and improving
signage.
We will also investigate the potential of using the river to take some of the strain
during the Olympics, and providing alternative transport provision for the Thames
Gateway.
134 Thames Clipper runs to 98% of its timetable. ‘London’s Forgotten Highway’ Transport Committee,
at p7
135 ‘London’s Forgotten Highway’ Transport Committee, at p4
136 ‘London’s Forgotten Highway’ Transport Committee, at p5
137 Minutes of Meeting with Thames Clipper and Parkview International, 11 July 2006
## Protecting London’s Cab Trade
We believe that the cab trade has not got the support it deserves. There are three main measures we will enact right away to ease the burden on the cab trade;
1. Scrap the mid-year inspections. They add to the cost of the licence, and are an unnecessary burden on cab drivers.
2. Scrap PCO Notice 44/06 which penalises cab drivers for stopping at red routes to allow passengers to use cashpoints.
3. Work with local councils to make rules on using bus lanes the same across London.
Additionally, we believe that the cab trade needs to be recognised for its unique place in London, and that should be reflected in the policies of TfL as a whole. Therefore, we propose to appoint a representative of the cab trade to the TfL Board.
### Mid-Year Inspections
In August 2007, the PCO introduced mid-year inspections for cab drivers, in addition to the standard full inspection. Although the extra inspection doesn’t cost anything it has meant the overall yearly licence has had to rise by £36.138
Before this, cabs had a mandatory yearly inspection, with random on-street inspections throughout the year.
TfL road casualty figures show that taxis have, over the last few years, accounted for around just 1% of all road casualties in Greater London - indicating that the previous inspection regime was robust. 139
### Stopping At Cash Points
Cab drivers can stop almost anywhere to pick up or drop off a passenger.
There is no set time limit, and cab drivers can stop for as long as necessary for the passenger to get in or out. If there are waiting or parking restrictions, the cab cannot stop for longer than necessary for the passenger to board or alight.
Cabs can pick up or set down passengers in a bus lane even if they are not normally allowed to drive in it, and can also do so at bus stops.
However, PCO Notice 44/06 states: “Highway authorities will not allow parking where a passenger asks a driver to stop and wait while they visit a shop or use an ATM. This is generally seen as little different from a private motorist parking while they do the same.”140
138 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/19\_07-PCO.pdf
139 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/2840.aspx
140 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/44\_06.pdf
This restriction unnecessarily inconveniences passengers, and taxi drivers risk losing the fare if they refuse, or incurring a fine if they agree, to let a passenger use a cashpoint.
We want to remove this unfair regulation that penalises taxi drivers for doing their job.
## Bus Lanes
At present, taxis can use about 90% of London’s bus lanes. However, the times of enforcement often vary between local authorities, where there are different traffic management priorities. This means, a cab can drive in one bus lane without getting penalised, but on crossing into another borough can suddenly find themselves landed with a fine at the same time of day.141
We recognise that local councils must be free to respond to local pressures, but this situation is confused as the enforcement varies so much and so often. If it is TfL policy to allow cabs to use bus lanes, because they are an essential part of the transport system, then it is unfair to allow such large variances in enforcement.
We will work with local councils to ensure that bus lane enforcement is more consistent.
## Cab Trade Representation
The TfL Board consists of 15 people, all appointed by the Mayor. A London Assembly scrutiny in November 2005 (“Where To Guv’?”) recommended that the cab trade have at least one representative on the TfL Board. This has not happened.
The cab trade is an important part of London’s transport services, and they must be given representation at the top table, where key decisions are made. This would enable their voice to be properly heard.
We will ensure that at least one appointment to the TfL Board is a representative of the cab trade, and at least one appointment is a representative of licensed minicabs.
## 4. Making Transport More Convenient
* I will provide Londoners with new LiveBus technology, so that every Londoner will be able to see in real time, online, where their bus is as they wait, or as they plan their journey
* I will stop the proposed Tube ticket office closures in outer London
* I will allow Londoners to set up a direct debit to renew their travelcards
### LiveBus: Live Interactive Bus Tracking
We propose to use the live tracking system for buses to create an online, real time map of the location of every bus in London. This scheme, LiveBus, will allow Londoners to plan their bus journeys better.
Ken Livingstone has already committed Londoners to paying £117 million over four years to fund iBus.142 As part of the iBus scheme, all buses will be fitted with GPS systems. This uses satellite technology to track where the buses are. The data is fed back to a central computer, which then transmits the position of each bus relative to London’s bus stops. This data is in turn transmitted to the LED screens placed at certain bus stops that reveal how many minutes before the next bus arrives.
However, although £117 million of farepayers money is to be spent, Londoners will not be entitled to access the most useful element: a live map of London’s buses.
TfL have already confirmed that only administrators will have access to this information.143 We think this information should be made available to all Londoners.
Under our proposed scheme, passengers will be able to access a real time map through the TfL website.
For example, users would be taken to a map and a dialogue box that asks you to input a route number, or a postcode. They would then be given a full map of the route and the position of all buses on it. Londoners would be able to know with accuracy how close they are to the next bus.
All of London will benefit from LiveBus Interactive Map Technology. In particular the outer boroughs, where bus services are more fragmented and less frequent, will receive special benefit.
The London Assembly Transport Committee has already noted that part of the reason for the reliance on the car in the outer boroughs is the inability to ‘satisfactorily plan one’s journey.’144
142 Mayor’s Annual Report Summary 2006/07, p.4.
143 TfL information on iBus, www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/technologyandequipment/7203.aspx
## Saying No To Ticket Office Closures
We deplore Ken Livingstone’s proposed closure of 40 London ticket offices on the underground network, including at several important suburban stations and key central London stations, such as Cannon Street and Regent’s Park.¹⁴⁵
Unsurprisingly, Ken Livingstone has delayed these unpopular closures until after the election. The latest round of closures are due to take place in October 2008.
TfL claims that these offices make hardly any ticket sales, such is the widespread use of Oyster. However, many of these ticket offices still make ticket sales of more than 100 tickets per day.¹⁴⁶ In addition, manned ticket offices provide a reassuring, visible presence. They can act as a first point of call in times of emergency or help and staff can see the whole station via CCTV screens.
The ticket offices are not being closed to save money; Ken Livingstone has promised that no staff will lose their jobs.
There has been significant local opposition to the proposed closures. One petition to the London Assembly generated 3,449 signatures for just one station, North Harrow.¹⁴⁷
There is little financial, strategic or common sense in these closures. We will halt all such ticket office closures immediately.
## Easier To Pay
Another way to ease congestion and aid the journey experience is to make it easier to buy tickets, and a key element of that is to expand the Oyster network – especially in outer London.
We intend to ensure that the number of Oyster outlets continues to increase in outer London.
We will also make it easier to renew weekly and monthly travelcards, by giving Londoners using an Oyster Card the option to set up a direct debit to automatically renew their travelcards. This will mean they never have to queue to renew their travelcard again, as each month the payment will be taken out of their account and their Oyster Card will be updated the next time they swipe. TfL do not currently offer this service, and we believe they should.
---
¹⁴⁴ Transport Committee, ‘Transport for all of London’ March 2002, p.19.
¹⁴⁵ *A full list of stations where ticket offices are to be closed*: Barkingside, Becontree, Boston Manor, Buckhurst Hill, Cannon Street, Canons Park, Chesham, Chiswick Park, Chorleywood, Croxley, Debden, East Putney, Fairlop, Hornchurch, Goldhawk Road, Ickenham, Latimer Road, Mansion House, Mill Hill East, Moor Park, North Ealing, North Harrow, Northwood Hills, Park Royal, Perivale, Ravenscourt Park, Regents Park, Royal Oak, Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens, South Ruislip, Sudbury Hill, Temple, Totteridge & Wealdstone, Upney, West Acton, West Finchley, West Harrow, West Ruislip and Wimbledon Park.
¹⁴⁶ London Travel Watch Secretariat Memorandum 11.7.2007. Latest figures show that Buckhurst Hill has a daily sales rate of 150 tickets, while Boston Manor has a daily rate of 134.
¹⁴⁷ http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/petitions-list.jsp#24
Promoted by Ian Sanderson on behalf of Boris Johnson, both at 30 Millbank, London SW1P 4DP. Printed by Colour Creatives, 5 St John's Parade, Sidcup High Street, Sidcup, Kent DA14 6BX
**Campaign Headquarters**
County Hall
Riverside Building
Belvedere Road
London SE1 7PB
**Telephone**
020 7202 7042
**backboris.com**
**BACK**
**BORIS**
for a greater London