• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Is it right that you should simply identify opposition to your Tall Towers policy simply to English Heritage? English Heritage have a statutory responsibility to comment on such matters, and, in effect, by rubbishing them in the way you have continually done so far as this inquiry is concerned, you are trying to block off a way in which ordinary members of the public feel that their views are being expressed by this statutory body.

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

You talked earlier about the problem of the London Underground Board being foisted on Londoners by Government. It crosses my mind that a question we explored at the Assembly, I think, almost two years ago now, which was the possibility of having confirmation hearings for Board members, was one that might raise its head again on this issue. We could then explore with Mr Crowe precisely the role he might play on the TfL Board and we could go face-to-face with him on the problems he might suffer on this. That is, I think, still an issue that is worth...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

If it doesn't?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

My other concern is that, even when you have taken over the Tube, you might not have as much influence as you think and that you will be in a position, with your own Board member, of a strike still being called. Who do you think is going to win, because I think there will be a pitched battle between you and Bob Crowe at some point?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

I take the view it is better to have Bob Crowe in the tent than out of the tent, so long as he does not try and continue his political campaigning against the Chancellor. While I have many criticisms of the Chancellor, the TfL Board is not the place to carry out those campaigns. However, you say - and obviously I do agree with you - that it will be better once the Tube comes over because the lines will be quite clear, but until such time I do not think Londoners should be put to struggling around London. It...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

Mr Crowe has made no bones of being perfectly open about the fact that he is a member of the Socialist Alliance. It is reported that your three closest advisors are members of the Socialist Alliance. How many more Marxists do you intend to appoint to key positions in London during the remaining two years of your mayoralty?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

Do you not think that you, as Mayor of London, have a slightly higher responsibility to speak up for Londoners, and to send a signal that it is unacceptable?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

You could very easily say, "If you cripple London with strikes in future, you will not have a place at the board table of Transport for London". What is the problem about that?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

According to the City Corporation, whose leader serves in your Advisory Cabinet, that strike cost business in London approximately £100 million. It also inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working Londoners. Do you not think you should put them first before your militant friends?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

On Thursday, Bob Crowe said, "I think we will be laying down more dates for industrial action". In the light of that, do you intend to dismiss him from the Board of TfL?