• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 19 June 2002

Regardless of whether it's Shirley or somewhere else, the reason these issues are coming up at this Question Time, again and again and again, is TfL's unaccountable bureaucracy. It is out of control with no one really guiding it. There are lots of little local issues which, maybe the whole of London doesn't care about, but which are causing real pain and grief on the ground, whether it's a hole in Blackheath or whether it's a problem in Shirley. You've got to sort it out. I'm talking about the process and what you're going to do to sort out TfL...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 19 June 2002

It appears to a casual observer such as myself that you are defending the TfL bureaucracy in this. The businesses in Shirley want to present themselves in a favourable way. They see Transport for London as being an obstacle, not a facilitator. You're sitting here today saying, "Well, they're doing their best" and it isn't good enough. You are at risk of being infatuated with the big things and forgetting that to make London work effectively a lot of little things have to happen on the ground locally and people need to be communicated with, they need to be taken...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 19 June 2002

Having been down there to look at it, I think at the moment the major problem is that other work is being done on that road as well. There are two building projects spilling out onto the road, closing lanes and there is the London Underground project at Knightsbridge Station which is taking the central reservation out of service for some distance along the road. Did the TfL engineers even consider those projects and those problems which appear to be going on at the same time as they want to introduce this bus lane and further restrict the traffic flow...

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 19 June 2002

It's obviously an issue which has caused a great deal of irritation. But I think it reflects back on the issue of what we are trying to achieve with a strategic authority. Can I just ask one further question which relates to our role here as Members? You very kindly gave an assurance. I think Trevor was in the Chair at the time, on a temporary basis, about the protocol that exists with Members in terms of them being advised of major significant strategic changes to the road network within our constituencies. Has that protocol been worked out?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 19 June 2002

It's probably fair to say that there are a lot of Red Route signs that are along this particular area, so perhaps they will be the first signs maybe to be reduced in number. I thought the purpose of us setting out on this adventure of the Greater London Authority was that we were going to set up a strategic authority and I do wonder, bearing in mind the way with which TfL seems to struggle with many of its abilities to be able to liase externally, perhaps because of issues to do with resources, perhaps because there are many...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 19 June 2002

The problem with consultation, I think, doesn't just extend to Assembly Members; it extends to people across London. You have a plan at the moment, again one of TfL's projects, to put a bus lane into the Brompton Road, to extend the bus lane there. Yet, 83% of the residents of that area have stated that they were not consulted and 55% of the businesses along there claim they were not consulted by TfL either. It's an experimental scheme, but do you not think when you hear figures like that and the surprise of people that there's something seriously wrong...

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

Well obviously I know Kumar quite well in the East End and I respect quite a lot of the work that he's done. I appreciate you've made it clear that you want the activities of the London Muslim Coalition, which is an independent group, to be clearly distinguished as separate from the GLA. You seem to feel that there's no contradiction between that and Kumar's continuing active role in that coalition as a facilitator of that and I respect that as well. Obviously there are challenges. The problem I have is the letter which Kumar sent to the Jewish Chronicle...

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

But with respect, Ken, what I'm trying to clarify is at what point would you say, "Hold on, irrespective of whether this is relevant to the subject to which I have asked you to give me advice, I now find the remarks you have made or the way you have said them to be unacceptable and I therefore wish you to step down from that role"? Would you, for example - and let's take an extreme example and one which I'm sure none of your advisors would ever wish to take - if one of them said that paedophilia should...

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

Clearly from the action that you've taken, for example in asking that the address be changed and so on, you wish to distance yourself from the views that were expressed by Kumar Murshid. Could I ask, how far does one of your paid advisors have to go before you decide that they are a liability to you and that you wish to get rid of them? What is the point at which you will say, "I am sorry, because of what you are saying you are damaging my position"? What is the point at which you are going to say...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

It was an interesting day in all sorts of ways because to see Muslims protesting with Orthodox Jews against that rally was a sight that I never expected to see. It's not my job to defend Murshid, but I have here a letter that he sent to The Jewish Chronicle which does to some extent explain how his remarks ought to be understood. I'm not sure if people have had access to that letter or not, but it might be worth circulating if people are concerned with this matter.