Search questions

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

So is that it? You are not even thinking about it.

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

I was not going to come in on this, because I do not want to give Giuliani more publicity, but it makes me vomit when I hear the way people talk about this. Following what Jennette said, I visit New York three or four times a year, as you know. Anywhere in the community that I am in, the word people use for him is "seriously butters", which means totally ugly, and they say that his actions are "hank", which means they stink. There has been a lot of hero worship of Giuliani. On the police, he implemented the programme...

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

Since you mention it, I would not mind having my book back. You notice that I wrote my name in it before I gave it to you. My point is very simple: that a myth and a legend is growing up - you are as much a victim of it as anyone else - and people are saying, "Why don't you do what they do in New York?", when it would on occasion be spectacularly inappropriate. It is very important that we find a way of having a sensible and informed debate for the public, instead of us all -...

• Reference: 2002/0031
• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 23 January 2002

Can the Mayor explain why he placed an advertisement exhorting readers of the New Statesman and Tribune to use London Buses? Would he also outline how much the adverts cost and how many Londoners he thinks it will reach, given that the New Statesman sells less than 50,000 and Tribune 10,000 copies nationally? .

• Reference: 2002/0029
• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 23 January 2002

Would the Mayor: a) outline what system of distribution was used for the £500,000 of GLA money spent in support of London's theatres and b) could he list how much individual theatres and production companies have benefited from the funds? .

• Reference: 2002/0002-1
• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Ken, can we stick with this issue of borrowing? About 65% of the increase that you're seeking relates to TfL and the fact that you want to spend more than your government grant would assume - £103 million or so - what you told us at the Budget Committee was, "never a borrower be". Can I just ask you first of all, TfL is borrowing £55 million to fund its capital programme, which is £66 million, why not borrow the whole lot or borrow none? .

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

So we can expect precept demands of this order in your own election year? Let me just ask you one other question. Let me just ask you about the advice that you're getting because I'm still puzzled about this prejudice you have against borrowing. I had a look today on the website of the nearest equivalent, the Metropolitan Transport Authority of New York, and their capital programme is funded by a combination of grant and borrowing. In fact, the amount that they borrow, about $1 billion, is about the same as they receive in grant. Their total budget is $6.9...

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

So, Bob's saying that this is his figure for the programme he set in 1982 to 2000? He made a mistake. He failed.

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

That's helpful to know but you still haven't quite answered why there's £11 million coming off the precept which seems to me a quite arbitrary choice. The total capital requirement in the TfL budget is about £310 million. What you're deciding is that, with the £55 million in TfL, you're going to take it all off grant and precept income. What I can't quite understand is, given the uncertainties that you yourself talked about at Budget Committee, how far should congestion charging go? What would you have to do to absorb London Underground? Why TfL alone, amongst any organisation that...

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Actually this is a hedge against the future really. It's not actually specific. What you're really doing is setting up a fund for, let's say, the next two or three years, to ensure we don't have too much trouble maybe the year after next. Is that what you're trying to do?