• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Funny you should say that because we noted a MAF at the last Mayor's Question Time for £150,000. There is your big survey coming up. There are hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on polling and it is exceedingly difficult to get to grips with what this money is being spent on and what questions are being asked. The irony is that you rush down and give us your own poll that you have paid for within a couple of days of polling ending, but the stuff the London taxpayers have been paying we have been asking for for...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

This is the first time they have said they have given it, and from what I remember of the site you are talking about I do not believe that that can be true.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

What we have been asking for, and what I do not believe is on that site, is a list of every poll that has been commissioned out of public funds, the questions that have been asked, and such of the answers as do not constitute Mayoral advice. That is what you have promised to do repeatedly and it has not happened. Will you again promise to do that today?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Well that is news to everybody.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

TfL seems to be having problems coming up with a few million to finance the draft Walking Plan and a few million to complete the London Cycle Network. But why are these sorts of small projects being squeezed when we understand TfL has proposals to spend hundreds of millions on new roads and bridge strengthening so that juggernauts can travel through residential areas and that sort of thing?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

I very much welcome that statement. The problem I have on reading the Business Plan is that it seems to be saying that the vast majority of the grant will be taken on meeting subsidy costs on existing services, and everything else, all those capital schemes, not just in East London, will have to wait and be dependent on the Government's largesse. It strikes me that by looking at efficiencies and being clear about the prioritisation within the resources we have, that we could have a far more constructive and imaginative way of approaching that.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

I think this is a useful discussion. I only started reading your Business Plan today, but the idea of working in partnership with you to take the case to Government strikes me and my colleagues in the Labour group as far more constructive than the shroud waving approach. I am pleased you have clarified that. One area where we might have concern though is in getting the balance right between the capital and revenue schemes and between the very necessary investments in places like the Thames Gateway and continuing to meet the subsidy costs of bus services. I seek an...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Can I go on to your differences with Bob Kiley, because he has suggested two ways of funding a budget gap, if there still is one after the Government has given you all this money. One is through borrowing and one is through raising fares, both of which you said you will not do. So is there a split between you and your Commissioner at the moment?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

I am not sure if that made you confident that they would respond to your seductive skills, given that it has gone from a £565 million projected hole to £900 million, without the Tube, that you are asking for. I am not sure you are not burying your head in the sand here. I want to know what `Plan B" is in terms of what you will have to drop or whether you will face increased fares as Bob Kiley suggests. Where are you going on this if your seductive skills fail, as I fear they might?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

I am glad you mentioned the Congestion Charge, because of course you originally projected that you would raise £200 million a year from that, then it was £120 million, then £65 million and now we understand it will be less than £10 million a year. Of course, you have had to pay £35 million to Capita to protect their profits and improve the service they are offering. Do you think that represents efficient and cost?effective use of the TfL budget?