• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 13 September 2006

Are you making this clear to the Government? Surely this does impact on your role as Mayor?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 13 September 2006

I agree with you about not wanting to rule out returning it to non-airport use; I think that is very important for east London and you need to keep your options open. However, are you not concerned by the massive levels of expansion proposed and that these will really undermine your environmental policies on C0² reductions in other areas.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 13 September 2006

I agree that, when Crossrail is built, there cannot really be any serious justification for London City Airport continuing, but are you not concerned by the huge expansion plans, and it would make it much more difficult to close an airport once it had expanded so dramatically?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 13 September 2006

It certainly still needs thorough discussion and debate though. According to their master plan, they plan to increase the number of flights from 71,000 to 171,000 and increase the number of passenger movements from two million to eight million. Even if the six million new passengers in the document were only going to be flying as far as Edinburgh, that would still create over 400,000 tones of C0² emissions additionally. Are you worried that this increase would completely override the carbon reductions that you are attempting in other areas of GLA and TfL policy?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 July 2006

I do not understand why you are so soft on Thames Water. You have been trying to understand their predicament for too long. Here is a company making £350 million profit, a 30% increase. Why are you putting £100,000 worth of public money into subsidising their advertising campaign?

• Question by: Joanne McCartney
• Meeting date: 12 July 2006

A third of Thames Water's purified water is leaked out of their pipes. They are applying for a drought order, a non-essential use order. Will you be making representation with regards to the application of that order?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 July 2006

Let me suggest some things that you do have some powers over. First they claim that they could not replace any more pipes because of the disruption and now they magically discover they can. The fact remains that still about a third of the water will never, even after the end of this plan in 2010, actually get to householders. Is TfL actively working with Thames Water to plan how to do a massive increase in pipe replacement, so the buses can keep running? Are you actually working constructively on this?

• Question by: Joanne McCartney
• Meeting date: 12 July 2006

With regards to the advertising campaign, and using iconic images such as Battersea Power Station and this building here, when we have forcibly been criticising them: do you think it is not somewhat hypocritical of them to claim the amount of water they are saving every day when in actual fact they are losing a third of it?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 July 2006

Can I ask that there be not a penny more of public money from your budgets going to Thames Water until they have actually set and met targets that are reasonable?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 12 July 2006

Nobody is suggesting that we should lower the standard of our drinking water. Thames Water have invested £6 billion since 1989, you are quite right, in raising the standard of our water. We now have chemical coagulation, sand filtration, activated granulated carbon filtration, chlorination and what have you, but we have now achieved that standard. There is no need to go back. We should maintain it. The point I am making is that up to 2010 Thames Water say they are going to invest £3 billion in water and sewage treatment, but £1 billion in leaking pipes. My point is...