• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

Can I be clear, on the match funding of capital works, is that capital, whatever source the capital comes from?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

Can I correct your misinformation as well? The Executive did not decide to demolish the building. You are obviously reading the local paper

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

This is a test done by London cab drivers, who had originally objected, but nevertheless, it is done by the independent laboratory in Southampton, and verified by them. Do you think at least, given the controversy over the results, you should suspend the programme so that you can make certain that you are fitting equipment that works, and that is not making pollution worse in London?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

That is good. The results are a matter of concern. We held a white cloth over the exhaust of one of the modified cabs, and that [holding up blackened cloth] is the result that we got, which I can tell you is considerably worse than an unmodified vehicle, although, to be fair, an unmodified vehicle is not absolutely clean either. Clearly it is not fair to inflict that level of particulates on London. Will you take half a dozen cabs at random, which have been fitted, from London, and have a test done, which both your guys and the Energy...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

Have you got money available to recompense people who have fitted these systems which do not work, if that proves to be the case?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

There have been some independent tests carried out at Southampton, on vehicles that have actually been operating under London conditions, rather than just in the laboratory. They have shown that, on nitrogen oxides, and on particulates, the vehicles with your system fitted are failing. Now, given that controversy about the results, would you be -

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

Well, let me give you an example. As a matter of fact, of course, this demonstrates that we are not behaving strategically, and you are not behaving strategically, because we are discussing individual planning applications. However, let us consider the Lots Road development, where the local authorities were quite clear that they did not want that to occur. You, on the other hand, were quite clear that you did want it to occur. So you, together with the Secretary of State at the time, campaigned, along with the developers, for that scheme to go ahead, despite the fact that the...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

Very good. I know that as far as you are concerned, it is Groundhog Day, every day, but most of us are living for the present and the future. This particular question relates to something which the Assembly supports, i.e. the Assembly has supported the result of this poll, because the Assembly, by and large, thinks that planning decisions are best taken by the local boroughs. You, for some reason, believe that you should be able to substitute your policies for the policies of the people who are actually closest to the situation. That, frankly, is unacceptable in a strategic...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

Have you read the survey?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 November 2006

I am always astonished, you know, that you are so buried in the past. You are constantly telling us about the pre-war policies of the Daily Mail group, for example, and you are allowing those things to -