• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

I appreciate that there may be pinch points where there is a conflict at say the boundaries of boroughs and so on, but would you agree and commit yourself to the view that as a matter of principle it should normally be the London boroughs who are the people on the ground and who are the people who are best judged to work out which are their local transport needs and that the Mayor and the Assembly should only interfere with those needs in cases of genuine and overriding strategic interest.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

I am grateful to hear that there was consultation to start with but would you agree perhaps that one of the problems that we had with the old GLC regardless of which party that controlled it was that frequently it was seen as being burdensome and oppressive in its dealings with the London boroughs and a body which interfered too much in matters of detail rather than matters of strategy.Following from that, would you be looking to a means of putting in place consultation with individual boroughs as well as through the ALG on the basis that the adjustment of...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

Have you considered how high a priority this consultation exercise should be as against those other items and what are the items that are likely to be lost in consequence of the McDonnell exercise?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

Are you saying to me, Ken, that this exercise will involve no additional costs?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

I think that usefully brings out the fact that in the course of the GLA Bill going through and indeed the course of the elections for the Mayor and the Assembly, the Government was very anxious to hide the fact that here is an extra £5 million a year nearly, that London ratepayers or council tax payers are going to have to pick up the tab for as a result of the Government's proposal to set up this body. You might consider whether or not that gives any kind of value for money to Londoners. Secondly, do you not think...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

Before the election and immediately afterwards you were very sceptical about the wisdom of moving into the building. That was scepticism which you know I shared with you. I am interested to know what is it that has changed. What has changed your mind, Ken?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

Can I just be clear about this. Will you assure us that the fact that you have appointed, as you observed to Sally Hamwee, representatives of no less than 3 unions to the Board of Transport for London has nothing to do with both the political and declared financial support that was given by those unions to your election campaign. Will you assure us that this isn't a buy off for your union friends?.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

I am delighted to hear that you want to get away from the culture of contempt. Some of us might think that having the General Secretary of the RMT that has just balloted for industrial action which is going to cause misery to untold numbers of London passengers is exactly that culture of contempt. Has Mr Knapp undertaken that he will renounce that culture and will no longer pursue that approach?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

It is more than just having the cycling work finished though, it is actually keeping the interests in mind of those people.

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

That's great. What about cyclists who are the other minority interest that I feel isn't represented and clearly you are not going to represent them either?