• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

Does that mean that you're determined to take them on?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

I'm pleased to hear that, Val. I think everyone would support that. I just wonder how you will be encouraging the Fire Brigade Union to support the root and branch change and the programme that you have outlined. To use the words of the Minister as far as the Fire Brigade Union is concerned - he talks about local government, he wants to strengthen it and not emasculate it. Have you got any plans for emasculating the Fire Brigade Union?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

Wouldn't you agree that this was a speech which could have been made to practically any group of local government officers? It said practically nothing really directly related to the fire service. In fact it was full of completely barmy New-Labourish phrases like, "Local government is a freestanding and important tier of government. We want to strengthen it not emasculate it" and, "Incentivising and empowering local government to lead their communities". Not really a lot to do with fire at all. And then he says, when he does actually mention the fire service, he says he's not interested in "radical...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Strikes are illegal in New York, Mr Mayor - that is the difference.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

The industrial action on the Tube is falsely represented as an element of this argument about safety. On Thursday last week, people were very angry that you had let London down. You let London down by promoting industrial action; you let London down by failing to provide extra bus services; you let London down by failing to provide car parking for people who wanted to drive into town when they could not use the Tube; and you have let London down in many ways by this ridiculous assertion that people should walk to work - certainly none of my constituents...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Ken, you know that I am not very keen on waffle either; so I will be quite happy with a yes or no answer to this. We have heard from the other end of the table that there is no alternative to PPP, so can you give me an answer to that?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

So you are saying that you are willing to compromise on funding, or to overlook the fact that taxpayers' money is going to be used one way or another to fund these proposals. In a sense you are giving up on bonds, which, according to every transport expert or financier in the world, are the best way forward. So I think you are caving in. Would you agree with that?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Well, you say that, Mayor, but from everything you have just said to Bob, are we not now heading to some sort of dreadful fudge? There is no compromise position: that has been the problem all the way along in these negotiations. Your negotiations, or Bob Kiley's negotiations, will limit that unified management to certain aspects of the Tube, so ultimately are you not sacrificing safety on the altar of the Treasury's arrogance?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Have you instructed Bob Kiley and TfL officers to stop all discussion with the Government's negotiators? If the answer is yes, will you now withdraw that instruction to that, even at this late stage, negotiations and discussions can continue? If the answer is no, will you agree to instruct your negotiators to go that extra mile to try to reach an agreement?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

With respect, the Mayor is not answering my question. Could he just answer it?