• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

I wholly agree with that, Mr Mayor. Many of us believe that the right to irritate and to offend is a fundamental part of our democratic freedoms. Would you then share my concern that the Metropolitan Police Service - and I have their revised submission here - is making proposals along these lines without even discussing them either with the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), or apparently with you, if you take a diametrically opposite view to the one they are expressing?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

When the PPP Arbiter gave evidence to the Transport Committee hearing last week, he could not deny that £750 million was likely to be the projected over run and, indeed, he could not rule out that London Underground (LU) might be found liable for a proportion of these extra costs. If he eventually, as seems likely, rules that the costs will have to be apportioned between LU and Metronet, are you saying you would rule out LU contributing?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

There have undoubtedly been additional costs in the refurbishments of the stations which have been as a result of negotiations between LU and Metronet. It does seem very likely that the Arbiter will rule that LU is responsible. If that is the case, what action will you take with LU?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

But if it is your fault, will it not mean that Londoners have to pay for it?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

And the Liberal Democrats.

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

It does sound a bit like the Olympics. You are saying: `Let us wait and see', but here is another area where it does look as though Londoners are going to have to foot more of a bill at the same time as enduring intolerable delays on the Underground.

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

This is not a good indication of Gordon Brown's PPP for the tube though is it?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

We agree about the end goal. The question is what are the mechanisms for getting there? I take your point about commitments about purchasing energy sources offsite, those can be changed. Is there not a fact that even if developers put in, for example, a micro turbine on the roof, there is no requirement on them to go on using it? Are there not real practical problems with this commitment such that you have to add the words in: `Where feasible' in to the London Plan?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

Can I make one practical suggestion that your officers may want to look at? I agree the ideal is the onsite but, where it is not feasible, can we look at whether developers can commute that obligation - rather than let them off the hook because it is not feasible - but commute it in to money, and put the money in to a fund which could then be used for things, exactly as you said, lagging roofs would be the most effective short term cut in carbon emissions? The problem there is simply one of money. Can we look...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

A lot of us - and this probably applies to other political parties as well - occasionally resent the monopolisation of green issues by the Green Party and the other mainstream parties do have strong green strands to them. In the US presidential election, votes for Mr Nader effectively denied the progressive party the presidency. Is there a similar dilemma for Londoners, notwithstanding the green deals, and what we need to do is entrench green politics within the mainstream parties?