Following Boris Johnson’s decision to close three police stations in Westminster, the Mayor promised they would be replaced with an ‘equivalent or better service’ and opened five police contact points in their place.

It was previously reported that an internal Met review found each contact point in London was used by an average of just 1.3 people each week and “do not appear to offer particularly good value for money”. It also said that the geographic location, the opening times and the ‘look and feel’ of contact points were under question.

A detailed review of the contact points was promised in July 2014 but to date nothing has been released by the Metropolitan Police. When questioned about their effectiveness last July 2014 Boris Johnson dismissed concerns saying “contact points are not being used in quite the way that they perhaps could be, but that perhaps is a fault of lack of publicity or whatever.”

When the Mayor made plans to close three police stations in Westminster and replace them with contact points, he promised an ‘equivalent or better’ service. Yet many of the public are completely unaware of their existence and even the Met have questioned their value for money.

I do not rule out contact points potentially having a place in modern policing, but there are clear issues with the way they are currently operating, with some appearing little more than token gestures. They need to be better publicised so that people know they are there, better able to meet the needs of local people, and provide a private setting so victims can speak confidentially with officers.

There are some sensitive crimes people are less likely to want to report over the phone. Unless the public know about these contact points and have the confidence they can discuss their concerns in a confidential setting, many of these crimes may go unreported.

We’ve been waiting almost a whole year now for improvements; it’s time people in Westminster saw action to make contact points fit for purpose.”

Every year the mayor sets out how he will spend £17billion of Londoners’ money.

It’s his chance to show how he will address people’s concerns and invest in the capital’s future.

Sadly the budget that Boris Johnson announced last week does nothing of the sort.

After years of rising transport costs and a grossly diminished police force – two of the most serious issues facing London today – we’ve seen nothing but the same from the Mayor of London.

Londoners wanted to see a budget which tackles these concerns head on.

In its absence it was down to Assembly Members to put forward alternative proposals which address the worries facing Londoners.

That is exactly what my colleagues and I sought to do when we supported two amendments to the Mayor’s 2015/16 Budget that would have put an extra 1,025 police officers on London’s streets and cut transport fares by 2.5 per cent.

Funding an extra 1,025 police officers on London’s streets would mean providing the equivalent of 33 additional officers for every borough in London.

This proposal comes amid concerns that violent crime in London has risen by 24 per cent in just the last year.

These extra police officers would hugely empower boroughs to tackle this worrying trend as well as putting more officers out on the streets.

It’s that visible policing which has suffered as a result of the mayor’s cuts to the police force. The Metropolitan Police Service’s own “Confidence Comparator” figures show that almost half of Londoners now believe the police do not have a visible presence on the street.

This should come as no surprise as many local people have become uneasy with the Mr Johnson’s cuts to local neighbourhood policing, which have contributed to the loss of 4,333 uniformed officers across London since 2010.

The latest available statistics make for worrying reading in boroughs such as Westminster where there are now 20 per cent fewer police officers and 56 per cent fewer PCSOs in the local streets since the current government came into power.

Our proposal of 33 additional police officers would help to start reversing these cuts as Londoners tell us they want.

The other main focus of our alternative was to offer respite for the Londoners who faced the seventh year of fare increases under Boris Johnson this January.

To do this I supported proposals which would have cut travel fares by 2.5 per cent to 2014 levels.

Despite us identifying ample funding to keep fares down (mainly from the Mr Johnson’s miscalculations and Transport for London underspends) he has consistently allowed fares to rise faster than wages.

Recent polling shows that 76 per cent of Londoners now believe that fares are “too high” and, following the 40 per cent rise in ticket costs since Boris Johnson came to power, it is essential to offer some respite to those struggling to cope with the costs of commuting.

Cutting fares back 2.5 per cent to 2014 levels would help reduce pressure on those anxious that their pay cheques will not stretch to cover Mr Johnson’s constant fare hikes.

It would put some £98 million back into the pockets of Londoners.

As with anything, these new police officers and the fares cut need to be funded.

While the Mayor of London’s tokenistic council tax cut would save the capital’s households seven pence a week, cutting fares to last year’s levels would put far more back in the pocket of the average commuter; a saving of a penny a day for each household or extra police on our streets and a much-needed cut to transport fares.

It’s clear which would leave most people in west central London feeling safer and better off.

Though blocked at last week’s meeting, Mr Johnson has the opportunity to revisit the proposals later this month when the London Assembly comes together for a final vote on the budget.

If he really valued the opinions of Londoners Boris Johnson would listens to our proposals and help Londoners concerned about the cuts to police numbers and the rising cost of commuting.

Published in West End Extra, 6 February

Last week’s Question Time in Finchley ended on a deeply depressing note when the last contributor from the audience said “that there is a strong correlation with the rise in the number of Muslims in Europe and the rise in anti-Semitic attacks “, a remark that went unchallenged.  In light of the fact that the programme is pre-recorded, l am surprised and disappointed by the decision to allow the remark to remain in the broadcast without a right of reply.

Such unchallenged remarks, that reach millions of viewers, have the potential to be accepted as fact and potentially damage community relations. The BBC under his Royal Charter like any other element of public service has responsibilities to strengthen mutual understanding, tolerance and promote community relations in ethnically diverse and multicultural societies.

I would urge the BBC to state at the beginning of the next Question Time that there is no evidence to support the claim that there is a correlation between the rising number of Muslims in Europe and anti-Semitic attacks.

Is London ready to have 24 hour Las Vegas type casinos?

Last Friday l put in my letter of objection to LBKC on the proposal of building a 24 hour casino on the lower grounds of the Holiday Inn behind Gloucester tube station along Cromwell Road, South Kensington.

After hearing local resident concerns late last year, l also put in some questions to the Mayor to find out where he stood on the issue but the response didn’t make things any clearer to me or to local residents.

Does the London Plan contain a specific policy which addresses proposals for casino development? The clear answer to this is that the Mayor’s London Plan does not include a specific policy for casinos

What London Plan policies are usually relevant during considerations of planning applications for casino development? Clearly some parts are relevant like entertainment uses; retail and related facilities & services but not directly.

Do any of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents include guidance which addresses proposals for casino development? The Town Centres SPG recognises casinos as a ‘main town centre use’ in line with the National Planning Policy Framework but clearly South Kensington is not a Town Centre but part of Central London so l am not sure how relevant that will be.

How many strategic planning applications which included a casino have you considered in your current term in office?  You would think he’s had to deal with the issue but clearly not yet so far making how this particular application is handle very critical for London as it will set a precedent.

Now l hear the Mayor is doing a SPG for Central Area Zone (CAZ) and wonder if it will cover the issue. My question to him on this front will hopefully give him the opportunity to assist the borough and its residents for the rejection of the application, as its sure to be pushed very hard by the backers of the casino, Genting UK.

Whilst l await his response to this question, its quite clear he’s not ready to respond to the challenged posed by this mega  24 hour casino down on Cromwell Rd as his much lauded London Plan doesn’t contain a specific policy which addresses proposals for casino development. Furthermore anything he puts in place through SPG may well be too late in the day as the big business interests behind the 24 hour Las Vegas will have to be dealt with immediately. And anyway as we know this Mayor doesn’t really put up a fight against them at all. So its highly likely then that he’ll be letting down the good folk of Kensington & the borough in their battle against the proposal.

It is deeply worrying that the Mayor of London does not have a strategy for tackling fuel poverty despite entering office in 2008. With 5,405 households in Kingston-upon-Thames now living in fuel poverty. Cold Homes Week highlights the need for urgent action to get a grip on this silent killer.

The capital’s cold homes crisis is hitting an increasing number of families in Kingston-upon-Thames, with the latest Government figures revealing that 8.9% of households in the borough cannot afford to adequately heat their homes. Across London as a whole nearly 280,000 families now live in fuel poverty, unable to afford the cost of properly heating their homes. Analysis of ONS figures shows that on average between 2008 and 2013 cold homes were to blame for 853 excess winter deaths each year in London. That means that across the five year period 4,266 Londoners are estimated to have lost their lives as a result of cold and damp housing. In Kingston-upon-Thames 23 people are estimated have died each year from the effects of excess cold.

Despite fuel poverty levels in Kingston-upon-Thames remaining significant at 8.9%, there are concerns that energy companies are failing to meet their obligations to help make homes more energy efficient. The ‘Energy Company Obligation’, which was introduced in 2013, places a legal obligation on large energy companies to deliver energy efficiency measures to homes across the UK but thus far in Kingston-upon-Thames just 0.2% of households have benefitted from the scheme.

London Assembly Member, Murad Qureshi AM said an urgent Londonwide plan was needed to address the numerous factors contributing to and perpetuating fuel poverty in the capital.

With 23 people dying each year in Kingston-upon-Thames as a result of cold homes, the first step is to deliver a long-overdue strategy to address this silent killer. In a modern city like London it is utterly scandalous that people are still dying because they cannot afford to properly heat their homes.

London’s cost of living crisis and rising energy bills have seen many households in Kingston-upon-Thames plunged in fuel poverty. If he is to fulfill his promise to be a Mayor ‘for all of London’ then Boris must take immediate and tangible steps to protect the most vulnerable people in our city.

It is deeply worrying that, seven years into his mayoralty, Boris Johnson is yet to come up with a real strategy for tackling fuel poverty.

I am condemning this month’s ticket office closure at Shepherd Bush which marks the start of a project to close several ticket offices across Hammersmith and Fulham. The move will leave passengers in Hammersmith and Fulham paying more money for less staff support.

The closure comes after it was revealed that the Mayor of London’s plan to close all the capital’s tube ticket offices will cost taxpayers almost £134m.  The cost is staggering and £134m of building works and ticket machines won’t make up for the loss of 897 station staff.

This month’s closure marks the start of a process to close ticket offices in 13 stations in Hammersmith and Fulham. The closures will also see almost 900 staff cut from London’s tube stations. I am particularly concerned about the impact the staff cuts will have on disabled and elderly passengers.

Amongst other things the £134m will fund additional ticket machines in 27 stations, four new customer receptions and the conversion of 181 ticket offices for other uses.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of this month’s ticket office closures. This argument isn’t about whether staff are based in ticket offices or not. It is about whether there are enough staff in stations to provide the good service people in Hammersmith and Fulham have come to expect, particularly the elderly and disabled who often rely more on station staff for assistance.

The truth is a staggering £134m of building works and ticket machines won’t make up for the loss of 897 station staff. No matter how user friendly a ticket machine is they cannot provide the same level of advice and customer service that staff could. Coming after tube fares were hiked for the seventh year running many passengers will wonder why they are being asked to pay more money for less staff support on their journey.

If you like me have been wondering how much Heathrow Holdings Ltd  must be spending on the tube to market their expansion plans with adverts on bill boards and ticket barriers at Westminster tube station etc, please see the response l got from TfL on that very question.

The response reveals in the month of March 2013 alone, Heathrow Holdings spent £233,700. More recently in May £66,016 was spent and it had been kept at that level monthly up and till November. I will now have to find out what was spent in December 2014 and January/February 2015!

Lets hope its money going down the tubes for them!