• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

So you welcome us beating a path to your door with local schemes that need funding?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

And local schemes?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

You have several tram projects, including the West London Tram. Surely they are dependant on getting some capital permission, otherwise you have to elongate the design and consultation period, which is really going to be very excessive in expenditure is it not?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

What would you say then is the greatest risk to Londoners in terms of the current Spending Review by Government? You seem to be saying everything is guaranteed, we have no concerns and we hardly need make a bid for that because it has all been nailed down previously. That seems a bit too good to be true.

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

Good morning, Peter. You have explained that the pace of the PPP programme and Crossrail are almost entirely dependant on the Comprehensive Spending Review. Can you say which of the major TfL projects will really stand or fall by the results of this Review?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

So those are subject to separate bidding and funding exercises?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

The second part of the question is about local arrangements. There are two very quick parts to this and I would welcome very succinct answers. First, has the inexorable expansion of bus services in London reached an end and are there pressures to make it rather more difficult? Second, if there are budget pressures within TfL, are there many local schemes that will benefit; for example, safety schemes travel to school schemes, pedestrian fear of traffic schemes, pedestrianisation schemes, cycling schemes. Are they going to get squashed out of the sandwich as a result of this? What guarantee can you...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 21 February 2006

I am concerned that what I think we have here is actually a council in meltdown, and I think that is a strategic issue in London. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the fraud said basically, to summarise, there were no pre-employment checks, the fraudster was not interviewed, the CV was not received, his references were never taken up and no criminal record check was taken. On the contracting and tendering processes, the fraudster set up a fake company, put it on the approved list, and then awarded it a massive contract. No payment authorisation, payments were made but not related back...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 21 February 2006

I am pleased that you have raised concerns about the loss of leisure facilities in Lambeth, but will you also condemn Labour-run Lewisham? They are planning to close down a leisure centre, which will leave Lewisham without any leisure facilities for three years from 2007-2010. Would you find those plans from any council to be unacceptable and will you condemn them?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 21 February 2006

I am tempted to ask which part of section 45 (3) of the GLA Act this question refers to. In other words, what this has to do with your strategic responsibilities? Since the question has been allowed, and the answer has been allowed, can I say that everybody from all political parties would condemn fraud, but that is an amazing cheek from the Labour Party to raise the question of fraud, corruption and mismanagement in Lambeth? Are you aware that in the last year of the Labour administration, there were 89 separate cases of fraud identified, with £1 million pounds...