Search questions

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

But the increase in grant is over 40% and that's the increase in the net money you get before you go to council taxpayers - over 40%. In what way can you describe an increase of 40% as leading to a position where this year's budget starts as being under-funded? There's a structural increase in the bus subsidies required to provide services. There's roughly £250 million, which is expansion in services. Now that's my assessment but you're saying it's under-funded. Can you explain to us why it is so chronically under-funded that you need another £100 million from London taxpayers?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

I'm taking that as no. Let's look at the congestion charging package. Now regardless of whether it goes ahead, it does require you to procure something like £60 or £70 million worth of work from private contractors. Did you sit down and look through the options of how you should procure that? The way your budget is structured, it's just a straight hit on the taxpayers. It's an obvious scheme where you could have leased it; you could have structured it through a private procurement, which would have been funded from the revenues it generated. Did you look at that...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

So you're the chair of TfL and you're basically saying you've never actually looked at it? You've never asked the board to look at the justifications as to how you'd structure this spending?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

You've never quizzed them on the method by which you might want to buy this scheme?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

And you have never considered the impact that will have on London taxpayers?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

So you're saying that your dealing with Government totally funds the congestion charging package and should be ignored as one of the lines in this years budget?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

But you are content for the Assembly to have a transparent examination of what it is that you have vetoed?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

I think before Londoner's fork out another £100 million they do need to be persuaded that you have sweated and worked those assets, as indeed Trevor has argued and as indeed have Conservative members. Can you give an instance this year where you have taken a hard headed appraisal of one of your investments and you have concluded that the best way of funding it is through borrowing, through private public partnership, through PFI of any shape or form?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Can I move on particularly to the transport policing initiative? Again there's a question about the coherence of your budget. As I understand it, if I'm travelling on a bus route in London, there are a series of types of people who will be helping to monitor my progress. There will be bus staff, bus inspectors, traffic wardens, and staff of TfL who will be carrying out other functions. There will be people maintaining camera monitor systems, which are designed to trap infringing motorists, and on top of that you have dreamed up this additional scheme. Can you explain to...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

The final question then is, I think you've made it clear that regardless of what precept the Assembly allows you to set, subject to its powers, you would protect this policing budget come what may, so that you would make savings in other areas. Have you therefore satisfied yourself that you actually have the legal powers to go ahead with the police initiative?