• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

I think even if you had all the information in the world it wouldn't change the fact that the PPP is not workable. Nick Raynsford says you haven't been to the bid-room, but you're categorically saying you have?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

So the charitable conclusion is that ministers are not in charge of their departments? The only other one is that they're deliberately misleading.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

You sent all members of the Assembly a copy of your letter of 8 March to Stephen Byers. In that letter you set out five very specific grounds, detailed grounds, which lead you to the conclusion that Stephen Byers' statements in Parliament on 7 February, to the House of Commons were, "highly misleading to Parliament and the country." Given the gravity of accusing a Minister of the Crown of deliberately misleading Parliament, as seems to be the only possible conclusion here, to what extent do you consider that Stephen Byers has any credibility in terms of concluding these negotiations? Can...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

What you've outlined to us is a pretty devastating indictment of the whole of the PPP contracts. What is the view of TfL as to whether these contracts are now even remotely salvageable, or are they discredited beyond any hope of being made workable?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

But not before the meeting so we could cross-examine you on that.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 13 March 2002

The poll tax actually went after a few really damaging, devastating defeats for the Government. The question that I think we want answered is if the Government is pressing ahead with PPP regardless, are you going to go out campaigning for Labour in the May local elections?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

Just a quick question on a related issue. You said a while ago that you would give the Assembly an update on progress with lesbian and gay equality issues in terms of procurement policy. I do not think we have had that yet, and I wondered whether you could give us a quick update.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

I accept the obvious visible differences; I still think that a lot of this is about culture and climate. It is not that many years ago - it still happens in some places - that people did not wish to admit a disability, for fear of discrimination. That, thank goodness, has largely gone. So it is about creating the right climate and the right culture. I am merely asking you whether you are satisfied that the GLA, as a model employer - as the pace setter that we all want it to be - is doing enough on these issues.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

We may pursue that somewhere else, because that is not entirely my information. But that is not necessarily the right answer. You described it as an oversight, and perhaps it was not an oversight - it was deliberate - but I still think that cause for concern exists. Are you aware - I am sure you are - that the Mayor's office in this context has been described at a staff meeting as "a most unpleasant place to work"? I wonder whether that has anything to do with why some lesbian or gay staff members might have asked that this...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

It was a very important oversight, and rather illustrates my point. It was not included, and it could and should have been. Even Customs and Excise recently managed to do it successfully. The GLA proclaims itself a model employer, and we all hope it will be, yet you say this was an oversight. That proves my point.