• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

At our last Question Time, you rightly condemned Ministers and civil servants who refused to give evidence to our congestion charge scrutiny exercise. Do you not think that, in refusing to set targets yourself, or take heed of what we have said in this cross-party report, which was assembled using the best information available anywhere, you are behaving as badly as those Ministers and civil servants you condemned?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

The point with congestion charging is that the public and we, the Assembly, need reassuring that the capacity increase is enough to take the people who are leaving their cars to go on public transport. I think you could set targets, and that you are avoiding setting targets. Now you have said that there are so many variables: when can we expect a bottom-line target for an increase in capacity on the buses?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

: Sorry, Ken: your re-election is not really the point

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

I do not think that that is acceptable, from where the scrutiny finished, because it is only by means of targets that we can assess success or failure. If TfL are letting 20% of contracts per year on a five-year rolling programme, then, even with the variables that you just quoted in answer to Samantha, you should be able to give a bottom-line target on which we, the public, would find it acceptable that the congestion charge should be introduced. It simply is not good enough to squeeze people along without them knowing how much extra capacity they might expect...

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

I really take exception to what Darren Johnson said. Although many of us here have stood on platforms about congestion charging, the role of the Assembly is to work with the Mayor on policy development. We cannot do that unless, to a certain extent, you question issues around implementation. I think, Ken, that you are not really helping yourself here. In fact, to some extent, setting targets on the reduction of fares in buses is a target in itself, and you could perhaps in due course be more explicit about that. The minute that congestion charging and all this is...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

You may not be aware that Westminster City Council and the city of London Corporation run a considerate builders scheme which includes not only safety issues but the noise and pollution impact of building sites on local residents. We note that you are unwilling to condemn London boroughs without knowing more about the position, but would you join me in congratulating Westminster and the City of London on these schemes, and in promoting them to boroughs in the rest of London? Perhaps that last bit is a job for your new appointment rather than for you personally

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

I do not know, but I think that I am one person here who has worked on construction sites, and the only UKATT member. London has a particular problem, given the low wages and high density of construction sites. But also, we have a very mobile work force, which drives wages down. Construction workers - not members of UKATT - who do not speak English cannot be properly inducted on a construction site, and that presents a huge safety problem. I think that the GLA has a part to play, because it is a particular issue for London. I support...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

I welcome that answer very much. According to the BRE, the United Kingdom construction industry has one of the worst safety records for any industry - not just in the United Kingdom but in the world. That is a deplorable situation to find ourselves in. I welcome the Mayor's commitment to supporting the Health and Safety Executive's campaign, and I hope that we can do so in practical and tangible ways.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

Are you aware that the Government's position in justifying this situation - which I think is deplorable - is that, while licensed taxis can be hailed on the street, thereby limiting customer choice, private hire vehicles have to be booked in advance, so customers have an opportunity to shop around? Do you share that Government view, or would you for once agree with me that it is wrong for transport operators to discriminate against guide dog owners? Will you take steps to try to redress that when you are able to?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 20 December 2000

I would agree with Margaret Thatcher - [Interruption.] - as I note you did. However, one objects to paying for them twice. We pay through our central taxation, which is then skimmed off up to the north. However, my second supplementary question is about reserves. The sums which you propose to raise from Londoners would increase the Metropolitan Police Service reserves by a minimum of £20 million. Can you give the Greater London Authority - and through it the Metropolitan Police Authority - the assurance that it is not your intention to try to hold those reserves centrally, providing yourself...