• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

I think we all appreciate the constraints of the SRB project and look forward to the new unveiling of the 'single pot'. What representations have you been making to Government? Because this is £10 million that Londoners will not get spent on them, as you say, unless you can come to a deal with Government. Is there any prospect of that and what discussions are you having?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

It just seemed odd to me that I discovered that you were doing this internal review when I read the audit report, which was at the same time that you wrote to me, but it wasn't mentioned. I think we've hopefully all learned from this and clearly we will now rush to get to LDA parties, even if they improve " there wasn"t much on offer for £280 a head, I can tell you. Moving on to more substantial part of the budget, the bit that really affects ordinary Londoners - and I think there was a regrettable incident there...

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

Can I say I am very happy to see the audit report? I have to say I never actually received my own copy, even though I asked the question originally. I was given a copy by a member of the press. I'm glad we have a free press that somehow gets access to this information. But I was very delighted when the Chair, George Barlow, indicated early on that he was going to seek an internal audit. But this doesn't seem to square with the letter I received from the Chief Executive when I made the initial enquiry about how...

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

Thank you. I won't dwell on that -- we've already had a long discussion on this but I think that you might have picked up that perhaps the Assembly doesn't quite share your optimistic view about how open and accountable the LDA is. But we've heard what you have got to say and are pleased that you are keen to move it in what we would see as the right direction. Last, to focus on four quick points really and a chance to pursue a point that was raised earlier. Firstly, two on the budget. If I could just ask...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

I am interested in that, then. You may have observed that, in the Evening Standard last night, the Deputy Prime Minister is quoted dealing with two of the specific point you raised there. One is the proposition that Mr Kiley says that, without full control of maintenance, he could not order the private sector to repair a broken rail at a specific time; and his response, "That's just not true. London Underground's operating side has total control over what it wants done. If the Infraco says it wants something done because it suits them but not the operator, they will...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

It follows from what you say that, by that final meeting, all those things had been withdrawn or vitiated.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Do we know who voided or vitiated those points? Was it done by Ministers or by their representatives; and were all these voided or vitiated prior to the letter before action which you told us you were sending, I think, about a week or so ago?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

I think many Londoners would be surprised to hear that actually the fire service doesn't have a statutory responsibility to deal with those things that you listed, whether it's a pussy cat up a tree or, in this case, a child that very nearly drowned. In fact it was thanks to another emergency service - the Air Ambulance - that the child was rescued. But I think people would expect their fire service to do that and maybe a better title would be the London Fire and Rescue Service, but I'm glad to know that you want to see change...

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

Wouldn't it have been better if you had gone down to Havering and told them in the clear, concise way that you have explained the matter to us? If you had told the residents directly what the position was, do you not think they would have far more confidence in LFEPA rather than, as they believe, having their concerns ignored?