• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

I was waiting for the answer, and it didn't come, which is how many mini-cabs will be exempt from the charge, when it comes in on 17 February next year?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Are you going to sack any of those people, or have any of them threatened to resign?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Which members of the TfL board opposed you yesterday?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Do you accept that there are some serious concerns on the TfL board now, given that half of them refused to back you on this?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

My question concerns the survey work, because certainly from our side, we are strongly supportive of the measures to regenerate the Thames Gateway area and are convinced that river crossings are necessary to achieve that. The question is really around how best to do that. I was, therefore, interested to see your survey which appears to show that only 2% of respondents are against the bridge. I have to say that figure is incredibly low. You get a higher percentage rating for people who would answer yes to the question whether the moon was made of cheese. 2% is below...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Why did you refuse to allow a vote on alternative proposals to be forwarded, an amendment by Dave Wetzel at yesterday's TfL Board meeting, which would have allowed, as part of the public consultation process, alternative proposals to be put forward as well as the road river crossings? Why did you refuse to allow that amendment and then have to railroad through your proposals for a road river crossing, when there was a 50/50 split, and yet you had to railroad it through on the Chair's casting vote?

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

So, is the Mayor urging them to work normally until the enquiry comes out?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

You have set an important precedent here and you should consider the implications when you do that. It is not nit picking.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

If the buses are being driven dangerously it's the person that is driving it and as the only member of staff on the bus, he would be responsible for it.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

I am interested just in pursuing the issue of safety because you have set a precedent here. What happens if a Tube driver decides, in a few months time, that he feels unsafe on the Tube because of PPP? Would you say to him, in that case, that he need not come to work? Or, for that matter, what if someone who works on the buses feels unsafe because 4% of buses are driven dangerously, according to your own figures: would it be all right for them not to work?