Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s plan to close Westminster and Knightsbridge fire stations was yesterday approved when his fire deputy used his casting vote to force through cuts to the Fire Service. The plans to cut 10 fire stations and 14 fire engines have been consistently opposed by Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM and opposition members on the fire authority.  

The Mayor issued a legal direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) to force them to comply with his cuts plan. LFEPA sought legal guidance on whether they could challenge the Mayoral Direction in the courts. However, the legal guidance received clearly states that there is no legal basis to challenge the Mayoral Direction and any court case would be lost. 

The legal opinion by a leading QC means that if the cuts had been challenged in court the Authority would have lost and potentially cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees. The extra delay could also have led to compulsory redundancy of firefighters and even greater cuts to the service. 

The Mayor was also presented with another chance to change his position today when LFEPA passed a motion calling on the Mayor to abandon his Mayoral Direction. LFEPA have asked the Fire Commissioner to investigate alternative crewing arrangements for aerial appliances, fire and rescue units and the possible removal of a small number of each. It is believed the savings generated would be enough to cover the shortfall caused by the Mayor’s cut to the Fire Authority. 

LFEPA has already seen cuts of £71million in back office savings, however to pay for his penny a day council tax cut the Mayor has cut the fire budget.  The approval of LFEPA for the Mayor’s fire cuts was forced through by Boris’ appointed chair of LFEPA, James Cleverly AM, who used his casting vote to approve the plan. 

London wide Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“We are all deeply disappointed that Boris’ cuts have now been forced through and that Westminster and Knightsbridge fire station will now close.  We wanted to continue the fight in court. However, the legal advice we received was categorical and clearly stated we had no legal basis to challenge the Mayor in this way. If we had gone down this route then we would have spent a large amount of taxpayers’ money fighting a futile battle. Today we have offered the Mayor a way out and avoid cuts to the stations and engines. Let’s hope he finally listens to Londoners and drops his reckless plan. 

“We oppose these cuts and have done so since they were first announced. By working with Londoners we have saved up to 21 fire stations that were under threat of closure. It is a disgrace that Boris has not used his power and resources to fully fund the London Fire Brigade and keep the other ten open as well. He is putting Londoners at risk and making our great city less safe. The public have spoken with one clear voice; the overwhelming majority do not want these cuts and want to protect frontline fire services. 

“Boris may be celebrating but today Londoners have lost, he should hang his head in shame. The London Fire Brigade does a fantastic job keeping us all safe and secure when we are at our most vulnerable. It is a testament to Boris’ cavalier approach and arrogance that he has not listened to Londoners and protected frontline services.” 

“Last year the Mayor announced funding cuts and plans to axe 31 fire stations and 36 fire engines. In the face of concerted opposition from Londoners this was reduced to 12 fire stations and 14 fire engines. Following further pressure throughout a fraught consultation this year the Mayor eventually decided to reprieve Clapham Common and New Cross Fire Stations and reverse his decision to cut the second fire appliance at Chelsea Fire Station. East Greenwich Fire Station also received an additional second appliance that was transferred from Woolwich Fire Station. 

Ends 

Notes 

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.
2. The full LFEPA Authority meeting documents can be found here: http://moderngov.london-fire.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=303&T=10
3. The amendment to the Supplementary Budget Report by the Fiona Twycross AM can be found here:

B. In response to the clearly expressed views of Londoners, this Authority asks the Mayor to abandon his direction and work with the Authority to meet the budget gap for 2014/15 through the potential savings noted at the Resources Committee as an alternative to cutting frontline fire stations and appliances. 

Moved by: Dr Fiona Twycross AM

Seconded by: Cllr Peter Truesdale

Mayor of London Boris Johnson today came under pressure on his record in rolling out the London Living Wage (LLW). At the current rate it will take 450 years for all low paid workers in London to receive the LLW. At today’s Mayor’s Question Boris was called on to accelerate the roll out of the LLW and for London to become a full Living Wage Zone. 

Boris also faced questions on the cost of living crisis that is hitting people, including the impact on BME Londoners; Boris’ fare rises; the use of Zero-Hours contracts; the cost of childcare; food poverty and rising energy prices.  

In Hounslow private rents went up by 1 per cent from October 2011 to September 2012, which amounts to £129 a year, whilst the average change in wages has decreased by 5.40 per cent. 

Labour London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“Londoners are struggling with a cost of living crisis with rents, food, fuel, childcare and fares outstripping wages. In Hounslow, residents renting privately have seen rents go up by 1 per cent from October 2011 to September 2012. That works out as an extra £129.00 a year. But the average change in wages has decreased by 5.40 per cent. 

“It is time the Mayor used his position and accelerated the expansion of the London Living Wage. At the current rate it will take nearly 450 years for all low paid Londoners to receive a living wage, I do not want to live in a city where people are forced to survive on poverty pay. If employers paid a living wage it would save the taxpayer money on the benefits bill, it would provide a boost to the London economy and allow people to live and not merely survive.” 

Ends 

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.

It’s time for Londoners to unite in opposition against a planned increase in water bills of £29 for 2014-15. Following the announcement that Thames Water has sought permission from water regulator Ofwat to increase bills for millions of hard-pressed Londoners, I felt compelled to write to Ofwat urging them to reject any hike in charges. 

Thames Water defended the increase, citing customer debt, increased environment agency charges and the unexpectedly high costs of purchasing land for construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. Thames Water is the only water company to have made an application to Ofwat. 

Following my letter,Ofwat’s Director of Finance Keith Mason wrote to me, stating that (Ofwat) “will not approve any increase in bills that Thames Water does not justify as being in their customers’ interests”. 

Ofwat will not approve Thames Water’s raid on family budgets unless they can justify the hike as being in the interests of Londoners. Yet, It is unbelievable that Thames Water, one of the country’s biggest water companies, should be seeking to raise prices at a time when many Londoners are struggling with the rising cost of living.   Thames Water themselves acknowledge this, stating without any sense of irony, that it’s because of increased customer debt that prices must go up.  Research from the Consumer Council for Water has shown that one customer in seven is already struggling to pay their water bill. 

The decision now rests with Ofwat to decide. I would urge Londoners to contact Ofwat and tell them if they think if it is in their best interests to pay an extra £29 next year. Londoners can write to the regulator at Ofwat, Centre City Tower,7 Hill Street, Birmingham, B5 4UA.”

At this week’s Transport Committee meeting l bang on about the upgrading of the forgotten lines on the tube Piccadilly ( & Bakerloo line ) when we discussed the Mayor’s Transport vision within his 2020 Vision document with his Transport adviser and TfL officials. Remember its already 11 years over due!

If you think the Piccadilly line is bad for travellers to Heathrow, think about the lot of local residents in West London. When getting on to the Piccadilly line tube particularly from Hounslow tube stops, you face a mountain of luggage in its narrow carriages to get into the train! At best you will be standing over other people’s luggage in the carriage. And to add insult to the wound, it passes through Chiswick as it speeds through 4 tube stations over a length of some 4.5 milles before getting to Hammersmith, where many would like to get on and off at some point in Chiswick.

TfL need to sort it out asap and begin their upgrade programme immediately, not only for the sake of travellers to Heathrow but also local residents on the Piccadilly, particularly in West London with better frequency of service and stopping in Turnham Green at least.

I had of course asked questions about it last month particularly in light of the impact of Chancellors CSR. Please find the attached link to the response to my question to the Mayor as well.

Amirul Amin is welcomed to City Hall

Last Friday, I welcomed Amirul Amin, President of the National Garment Workers’ Federation (NGWF) in Bangladesh to City Hall to speak about the need to improve working conditions in Bangladesh. In July of this year, I seconded a motion to the London Assembly calling for the Mayor and GLA family to use contractors signed up to the IndustriALL Accord. 

IndustriALL is the global union for garment workers, which has developed an Accord on Fire and Building Safety. This has been signed by many major British retailers. Amirul Amin is in the UK to speak at the Trades Unions Conference which started at the weekend. There are 3.5million people working in Bangladeshi garment factories that produce goods for export to the global market, principally Europe and North America.

I was especially pleased to welcome Mr Amin to City Hall last week to hear about the struggle he is leading against sweatshop conditions in Bangladesh’s factories. The National Garment Workers’ Federation fights for the rights of garment workers in Bangladesh and I support their calls to improve the appalling conditions facing many workers in the factories there.

Despite the tragedy of the Rana Plaza Factory collapse back in April, 8 Global brands still have not signed up to the Safety Accord.  Please help change by urging them to change this.  You can participate by clicking here.  

London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM yesterday attempted to block the Mayor’s changes to the London Plan. The Mayor’s changes will now mean that new ‘affordable’ housing will be set at up to 80 per cent of the market rate in London. This will lead to many new properties in London meant for people on low and modest incomes becoming totally unaffordable.  

Yesterday was an historic opportunity for the Assembly to reject a Mayoral strategy but a two-thirds majority could not be secured. This was the first time new powers granted to the Assembly under the Localism Act have been used. 

In Westminster, where the household median income is £39,951, tenants would need to have a gross household income of £81,813 to afford a two bed property at 80 per cent of market rent.

Westminster borough argued that: 

“No reasonable assessment of this data could draw the conclusion that provision of housing at 80% of Westminster’s market rent either provides “affordable housing” or would enable the City Council to meet its full, objectively assessed needs for affordable housing.” 

At the EIP they argued that: 

“We do not believe affordable housing should be secured irrespective of whether people can afford it… 

Labour London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“Today’s vote is a hammer blow and signals the death of new truly affordable housing in London. It is a complete travesty that this has happened. Westminster is against the Mayor’s plan as well as other boroughs of all political persuasions. 

“The changes will mean that, to rent a two bedroom flat in Westminster at the new 80% level a family would have to earn £81,813. The median family income in Westminster is £39,951. This is why I voted against this. 

“The Mayor’s changes will make London’s housing crisis even worse. They will now push affordable housing out of the reach of many Londoners on low, and in some areas, modest incomes. This will also drive up rent, increase land prices and further distort London’s housing market. Boris should have accepted the recommendations of the Independent Planning Inspector, listened to local authorities and revised his London Plan. 

“Combined with the welfare reforms the Mayor’s changes will make huge swathes of inner London even more unaffordable than they already are. Today’s vote will contribute to the ghettoization of our city and put intolerable strain on a range of already overburdened local services in outer London. This is effectively giving up on ordinary Londoners on modest incomes by making it harder for them to find a home that is affordable.”

 Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly. 
2. The London boroughs’ concerns with the Mayor’s proposed changes to the London Plan were raised during the ‘Examination in Public’, further details can be found here: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-plan/examination-in-public and the borough’s specific concerns here: http://www.slideshare.net/CityHallLabour/joint-boroughs-rema-response  

There’s been a lot of media coverage in the national papers over the disappointing progress to date of the Government’s flagship environmental programme, the Green Deal. Millions have been spent by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in bringing forward this new energy efficiency scheme aimed at households, but the Government’s own latest statistics, issued earlier this week, show that some eight months after the Green Deal commenced, only one person had reached the “live” stage of the programme so far. 

London has long-been short changed in terms of receiving support from the national energy efficiency retrofit programmes. The Government’s main insulation schemes have over the past 10 years seen the ‘big 6’ energy companies steer clear of London, stating that it’s cheaper for them to meet their targets and insulate homes outside the capital. So, whilst Londoner’s have long been funding the national insulation programmes through energy bills, they have missed out on helping reduce their own energy costs. 

It’s now been over two months since I asked the Mayor a question seeking clarification on the cost savings achieved by households who had gone through his own London-bespoke energy efficiency programme, RE:NEW. The normal response deadline for such Mayoral Questions (MQs) has now long gone and, despite several further prompts to Boris’s office, I’m still waiting for an answer. 

It’s not the first time Boris has held back on providing details on his multi-million pound RE:NEW scheme. After first stating that a programme evaluation report would be released in November 2012, it took further MQs to remind of him of his promise before, finally, analysis was released in June. Even then, this turned out to be only a summary assessment – the final evaluation study will, according to Boris,  be published in “Summer 2013”.  I’m not holding my breath. 

The RE:NEW programme model is to provide Londoners with a number of no-cost ‘easy measures’ such as an energy display devices, radiator panels and draught proofing insulation and then using these interventions to boost the take up of more significant solutions such as cavity wall and loft insulation through the national energy efficiency programme. 

The RE:NEW website sets out that “It is designed to reduce CO2 emissions from London’s homes, save residents money on their utility bills and make their homes warmer. It also contributes to reducing fuel poverty.”  Limited technical trials took place of RE:NEW in 2009, followed by demonstration projects in 2010. Originally launched through area-based programmes, RE:NEW was fully rolled out in 2011 and is now described as a ‘pan-London’ scheme, with all boroughs taking part.  

The Mayor has to date spent £7.8m on RE:NEW with the majority of this money (£5.7m) allocated to the 2011 pan-London rollout. The evaluation summary report looked at this rollout phase and stated that 50,683 homes were retrofitted and that savings could be as much as £122 per year to those households who took up further insulation offers from energy suppliers. 

However, as my still-unanswered question to the Mayor points out, the evaluation report reveals that after having the no-cost ‘easy measures’ installed – the vast majority of households – 97% – did NOT then go on to take up further insulation measures. Hence savings achieved to those homes that went through  RE:NEW are estimated to amount to only £28.81. This is nowhere near the level of £154 saving originally reported to the London Assembly during the RE:NEW pilot phase. 

To put this in context, if you take the average energy bill for Londoners to be around £1,300, homes going through RE:NEW benefitted by  a 2% saving to their energy bills. Over Boris’s term as Mayor, Londoners have seen their energy bills rise by around 20%. With future price rises anticipated by the ‘big six’ energy suppliers later this year, it appears that RE:NEW has managed to achieve little in terms of insulating homes or helping alleviate fuel poverty. 

A second phase of RE:NEW funding has recently been approved by the Mayor with the Capita group appointed to oversee programme management. They have recently stated that they want RE:NEW to “accelerate domestic retrofit projects in London” and be “bigger, better, faster”.  They will need to seriously improve on previous performance to help stop RE:NEW go the same way many think the Green Deal is now going.

Pavement width to be reduced by 2.45m, forcing pedestrians onto the road on a very busy bit of Edgware Rd

TfL are not happy with just selling off Shepherds Bush market to developers and quite possibly all ticket offices on the tube system but even the pavement used as public highway in highly dense locations like the Edgware Rd are up for sale, in the sale of the century.

The block along Edgware Rd which is affected is between Nutford Place and George St which has an extremely high footfall particularly at the end Ramadan. So much so that barriers have to be put along the Edgware Rd to stop people walking onto the busy road. Its clear that narrowing the pavements will put people’s lives at risk as local Traders like Pharmacist Mahmoud Abdul have suggested with petitions and appeals to the local council.

Which makes me wonder why are TfL selling off public highways that belong to the public so readily to developers like the Portman Estates?

Obstensively l am being told by TfL when l have enquired thate there was no overriding reason to prevent this being built on when the Great Portman Estate made the approach. This after an impact assessment by WSP suggests an overall improvement in the area of footway which is stands in sharp contrast to how traders and many users of the Rd will tell you. Indeed its not clear whether any public consultation has undertaken and indeed how much the land was sold for in the first place. So much so you have to wonder what regard TfL must have for pedestrians? Not very much is the clear measure from this instance. This all the while as it getting grateful publicity in the Economist for being pedestrian friendly.

It is time the Mayor got involved. After all this is being done under his mayoralty!

No stopping this Piccadilly line train at Turnham Green?

I welcome the consultation that TfL will begin on the 27th of August and l am sure residents of Chiswick will use this opportunity to state the case for the Piccadilly line to stop somewhere in Chiswick ( as it goes through 3 stations covering 4.5 miles without stopping ) ideally Turnham Green. Also let us not forget the case for also stopping the Piccadilly trains in Ravenscourt Park tube station as well, before the Piccadilly line gets to Hammersmith.

In the meantime, we have a fierce debate locally between partners of the coalition government the Tories and Lib Dem claiming to have got the consultation undertaken by London Underground in the first place. All l have to say is while there have been talking to TfL, l have been raising the issue direct with the Mayor. Only last month l put in a written question on the basis of my discussions with the Mayor, with a written commitment that he would start a consultation during the summer. And it should not go without notice that the response was given before TfL officials meet the local MP and others about the matter. So l hope this closes the matter of who got the consultation commitment out of TfL once and for all.

Such operational changes have been successfully implemented by the London Underground with the Circle line now going to Hammersmith. But lets not also forget the upgrade programme and the eventual impact of Crossrail on the Piccadilly line going to Heathrow. Indeed on the first l have been regularly asking about the upgrade of the Piccadilly line at City Hall, as another written MQT last month shows quite clearly.

And finally the impact of Crossrail could well be quite profound on the Piccadilly line going to Heathrow in West London, as it may become the preferred route into Central London for economy flyers on flights subject to ticket prices.

Colleagues Cllr Barrie Taylor & Cllr Nilavra Mukerji with our hosts for the day Cllr Tudor Evans & Cllr Chris Penberthy from Plymouth Council

During the August recess, l managed to pay a visit to Plymouth Council to see first-hand their efforts in running a Co-operative Council. My colleague, Councillor Barrie Taylor from Westminster made the arrangements following his commentary that “….political agendas in today’s world are dictated to by consumerist approach to decision making”.  So we set off to see how an alternative co-operative and collaborative set up would work.

Politicians know that it’s vital to obtain good value when spending public money, but merely focusing on efficiency ignores the need to include effectiveness (quality) in order to achieve a balanced judgement and decision. After all, local authorities are not corporate supermarket chains and it would be unwise to make this comparison, as many in the media continue to do, for example, in referring to Barnet council’s effort to cut services to the bone as “Easy” council. This clearly over looks the rationale behind the establishment of local authorities in the first place.

Plymouth City Council has a cabinet member, Councillor Chris Pemberthy.  His remit is Co-operatives & Community Development. The council does not pretend to have the answers to all issues but they do test their policies and contracts within arrangements that provide give back to the community. One of their initiatives is the Plymouth Energy Community.  This is an independent member organisation designed to save money for local people using face-to-face contact about the best energy deals. At the same time, it seeks to reinvest surpluses back into the membership company. Previously it was known as a mutual, worthy of inclusion as an added alternative to the directly consumerist model of decision making.  After visiting the Brixton Energy Co-operative in Lambeth earlier on the year, l was particularly glad to see that the council with Plymouth Energy Community has much less of a hurdle to jump in order to achieve its goals.