• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

John talked about "wicked issues", and I have two to raise. One relates to our shared commitment to universal access to culture in London. The other is something that we have identified relating to the congestion charge - the fact that it will act in effect as a cultural levy on Londoners. The £5 congestion charge will be a significant addition to the cost of an evening out, particularly at venues such as Sadler's Wells, who have tried to keep their prices low. We know that public transport is not a viable solution for many people - as Louise said...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

So we can see the documents, nevertheless?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

It is naive to suggest that the precept is not a matter of interest to the boroughs. While it is not my role to protect a Labour council, Croydon council nevertheless spent all its reserves to pay for your precept last year. You said that we should not use percentages, so perhaps I can make it very simple. Do you think it would be reasonable to double the precept in your term of office to 2004?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

Would you agree with me that it is an interesting idea to give responsibility for the technicalities in London to somebody who represents a constituency in Plymouth - about as far away as one could get? When you meet him, will you repeat to him your view that one of the problems is that the money has been moved from London to areas like the south-west, which I think is what you told us at the Budget Committee meeting?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

Bob Neill: Have you fixed up any meeting with the new Minister responsible for London? I note from your report that you saw Nick Raynsford: have you seen Mr Jamieson yet? The Mayor: Mr Jamieson? Bob Neill: He is the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, I think, and also has responsibility - The Mayor: He has responsibility for transport in London. Bob Neill: Which is clearly very important from that point of view.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

John Biggs: Can I just ask - The Chair: John, I am sorry; I really want to give people one question. Otherwise, we will not get anywhere close to - John Biggs: It is rather a Tory debate, with respect. The Chair: It was a Tory question, but I am going to put one point to the Mayor from the Budget Committee. Can you confirm, Ken, that, as well as telling us that you would set out as transparently as possible the options that are available, you will also be taking a lead in making recommendations? .

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

The problem that many Labour Members and supporters have with your Budget strategy is that it does not seem to include enough analysis of the alternatives. We all want to have rail links and bridges and more police; but every Londoner has to make hard budget decisions every day, and if we are going to sell it to Londoners, we need to see that you have done the same. Clearly you have a problem, in that you are a two-club golfer. You have congestion charging and the precept, and you may have aspirations to go elsewhere. There is a case...

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

Mr Mayor, do you think Londoners should bear the cost of the security cordon which was, rightly, thrown around London by the Metropolitan Police to try to keep the capital city safe from the potential of world terrorism? Don't you think you should be telling the Home Secretary, "This cannot be passed on to Londoners - it has to be found out of general taxation," and he has to come up with the full costs?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

I will do my best to perk things up. Let us get back to some really simple observations about the way in which you spend Londoners' money. You can bleat all you like about the big issue of whether London should keep more or less of its money, but I think you would make a more convincing case if we were not bombarded with the kind of ludicrous expenditure that you go in for - such as £100 while Helen Mirren has a taxi ticking over, or £140,000 on a launch party. I think you have about 20 staff working...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 19 September 2001

: In addition to the £10 a year for the policing, you have now quoted to us, let us say, £34 a year for TfL. That, of course, is in addition to the likely increase in precept of 40%, which you put in percentage rather than money terms, for loss of grant. Following your own policy consistently, can you help us as to what that 40% is in money terms for Londoners, in terms of loss of grant from central Government?