• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

I do not doubt that you should be friends. I am slightly puzzled as to the need to sponsor a drinks reception for big business, because the CBI membership is substantial businesses, in order to get the message over. You talked about 1,000 delegates. What did you, the GLA, TfL or the LDA actually do to get messages over, having got the sponsorship platform?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

I thought you might find it difficult to disagree with that statement. In that case, Mr Mayor, will you be voicing your concern both to the Attorney General and, presumably in private, to the Commissioner at the proposals from the Metropolitan Police to the Attorney General that they be given powers to ban flag burning when they feel appropriate, to determine what should not be on slogans, either on banners or chanted? Is this not straying too far down the road of preventing people from being offended, rather than preventing them being harmed?

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

Sorry to say this but you are about to be consulted and there have been discussions to bring it before the Authority, and the Authority can take a view. It is only over operational issues that the police cannot be directed, and we are pursuing that. My question to the Mayor is this - and we seem to have lost this in this debate in terms of some misinformation going on - where is this fine line between being able to be offensive and incitement to hatred and incitement to violence? Where does that lie, when we can pick and...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

I am not going to stray now into a debate on the structure of the governance of police in this country, but, rightly, in my view, both you and the Metropolitan Police Authority are prevented from intervening in operational matters but, surely, clearly, our role - whether it is you, the Assembly or Police Authority - is one in terms of policy. Issues like this, whilst we may not - and would not wish, necessarily - to prevent the Commissioner from expressing views, they should at least take account of the views of the elected Members and they should have...

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

In that sense it is not right to be offensive to people in certain circumstances. What I am talking about is incitement to violence or actions where it could lead to incite further violence. How do we, as policy makers, give that advice, or give clear directions, in policing public order situations?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That sounds very much like a review in all but name. Do you agree that the role of the police should be to protect the public from harm, rather than to protect the public from being offended?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

I wholly agree with that, Mr Mayor. Many of us believe that the right to irritate and to offend is a fundamental part of our democratic freedoms. Would you then share my concern that the Metropolitan Police Service - and I have their revised submission here - is making proposals along these lines without even discussing them either with the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), or apparently with you, if you take a diametrically opposite view to the one they are expressing?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

When the PPP Arbiter gave evidence to the Transport Committee hearing last week, he could not deny that £750 million was likely to be the projected over run and, indeed, he could not rule out that London Underground (LU) might be found liable for a proportion of these extra costs. If he eventually, as seems likely, rules that the costs will have to be apportioned between LU and Metronet, are you saying you would rule out LU contributing?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

There have undoubtedly been additional costs in the refurbishments of the stations which have been as a result of negotiations between LU and Metronet. It does seem very likely that the Arbiter will rule that LU is responsible. If that is the case, what action will you take with LU?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

But if it is your fault, will it not mean that Londoners have to pay for it?