Search questions

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

As far as you are concerned you are the Mayor, you are the directly elected Chief Executive and you are responsible, ultimately, for the probity of the organisation. The buck stops with you. One of your closest associates, a man you have worked with for 20-odd years and a man you trust with your life unfortunately breaches the Code of Conduct. That is not a matter for you to make sure that everything was properly recorded and documented to go to the Monitoring Officer; to protect yourself? You did not even do that?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

There are other qualified lawyers in this building. She happens to be someone who, by the nature of her job, has worked closely with Mr Jasper and also - because policy directors, your political appointees in other words, have to be identified with your policies - is closely identified with you. Why not ask the Chief Executive, the impartial Head of Paid Service, to make the search and employ such legal advice as he thinks appropriate?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

You have been misquoted again, have you?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

She is one of your political allies. That is the simple reality as are all your policy directors. Nothing wrong with that; that is the system.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

Mr Mayor, we can sit here and lose everybody in the figures. I can tell you you are losing 202 officers in the reduction in management structures; you are losing another 323 through improvements to the criminal justice system, a net reduction of 525. We can baffle everybody with all of these figures. The reality is that your 1,000 that you were proclaiming first of all is being funded by government and by the London boroughs, not through you and, secondly, is now actually not going to be achieved because the Government is not supporting you in two thirds of...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

So we have a commitment from you that if re-elected you will ensure that numbers of police officers will go up by 996 next year?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

The bid was for 300. The basis of your 1,000 was on the assumption, a rather rash assumption, that we would get those 300. In fact we have barely a third of that 300. There is a shortfall of £29.2 million on that.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

It all sounds extremely iffy doesn't, Mr Mayor? Your 1,000 included the 300 posts we are talking about here which turn out only to be 97; 300 on counter terrorism and 267 on Olympics. On your description just now of not at the cutting edge on the streets I would suggest that virtually all your 1,000 - none of which are being met through your part of the budget, all of which are being funded either by government or by the London boroughs - is not going to be achieved.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

I agree taking them out of management structures is a move in the right direction; the trouble is that move is actually reducing the total number of officers. It is not moving them to do something else; it is reducing the total number. Mr Mayor, we are going to sit here and argue about figures all morning. I suggest we do not. I think the reality is that the 1,000 you are claiming and you were so certain of you put in the masthead of The Londoner is actually turning out to be a fiction and is now what you...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 March 2008

Can we be clear? Is that a commitment next year if you are re-elected?