• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

It does seem that the offer made by the Government on different levels of skills training is not really suitable for London. What can be done to persuade the Government to allow us to have this greater emphasis on Level 1 training?

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

Thank you very much. A few of us had a meeting with a couple of Members from your Board and also, on the following day, with Members of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). They referred to there being 69% employment in London. I turned it round the other way: 31% in London are unemployed. While they assured me that there was no skills shortage as such, because people are being imported from Europe and from other parts of the country to fill these jobs here in London, there are 31% native Londoners who are still on the unemployment register...

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

What implications are there for your Skills Board in terms of the significant change in funding flow of taking LSC funding for 6th forms, up to 18, and turning them to local authorities? Has there been any impact or prospective impact?

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

Your Board says that they only deal with policy, but surely your Board and yourself would have much more power to push the Learning and Skills Council just a little bit more and get them a bit more imaginative, so in fact some kids that have skills in their hands could be plumbers and construction workers. If it was not for the Poles we would not be able to construct half of London at the moment!

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

But it means when you get home at the end of the day or they get to their office they can look. The point being, of course, that Park Lane is a freeway and therefore people are tending to use it because it is a designated route where they do not have to pay the charge.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

I think that is reassuring as far as it goes. I am delighted to hear that you are not intending to profit out of what could have been a tricky situation for people on that particular day. As you said, you did take the decision on 7 July to do it. I would argue that the two situations were similar in their impact on motorists, even though, fortunately, those were bombs that did not go off on 29 June. Would it be possible, do you think, for Transport for London in future to simply put up on their website, as...

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

Could I put it to you that the uplift in values of London's land should have gone back to London taxpayers? You have really sold out. What is more important, I would put it to you that there is nothing enforceable in this Memorandum of Understanding. It is not a legal document is it? Bearing in mind that Members of Parliament have taken the view that the management of this process is so complex that there is a great risk of further increase in costs to taxpayers, whether London or nationwide, what prospect is there that the figures that you...

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

One point that is not mentioned in your answer is the £300 million that will need to be found from the budget from 2010. Where are you expecting the £300 million of expenditure to come from?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

In the past you have criticised this Assembly for proposing an increase of £25 million in borrowing. You said it was `betraying our grandchildren'. Do you think that £300 million worth of such borrowing will also be betraying our grandchildren?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 18 July 2007

What guarantees do you have then from government in terms of the share of the possible uplift in value of land that would assist you in paying off both the debt and also the interest that you would pay on that debt?