• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

With the same success as with Crossrail?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Of course, the difference is that generals are not democratically accountable; the Mayor of London is, and it is public money that you are dealing with. So we are entitled to ask what your alternative is and how you would deal with it. Are you going to inform us as to what those alternatives are so that we can scrutinise the effectiveness of your lobbying on London's behalf?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Then you would have a mandate to introduce it anywhere. Will we be seeing it in Bromley?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

`Some" might be regarded by people as an understatement because if you aggregate the figures for those parties in the west central constituency who were opposed to the extension of the Congestion Charge, nearly 61% of those who voted rejected your Congestion Charge. Angie Bray, who you said would lose her seat if she persisted in her opposition, actually had the largest swing in her favour of any sitting Member, and though I say it myself, now enjoys the largest share of the popular vote of any sitting Member of the Assembly. Do you not think that might just be...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

The majority of them did in West Central, that is precisely the point, and you want to ignore it.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

There is some very interesting selective thinking there. I notice you omit the fact that Steve Norris (Conservative Mayoral candidate) tripled his lead over you in the West Central constituency. I notice you forget your previous assertions that opinion polls did not count one way or the other and it was not a referendum. You might be interested to know that Angie Bray (AM) has carried out a survey in the constituency that shows your much-vaunted TfL consultation was not received by 42% of the residents that were contacted and something like 81% are opposed to the extension of the...

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Jenny Jones (AM) said you were going soft and wobbly. Can you refute that and can you again give your commitment to continue to listen and pay heed to the concerns of residents on the boundaries? I am speaking about residents of Islington who are on the boundaries of the Congestion Charging Zone and would welcome a buffer zone at that point.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

As you know, we have opposed the westward extension for substantive reasons. I want to draw you back into those reasons. The economic, social and business impacts are still not defined beyond one year's worth of figures. A business is usually only given three years to break even. It would jeopardise the first zone by extending it into a second zone before you are absolutely sure and even you are wobbling around the timing of the charging ending period. You have already mentioned the boundary issues, then there is the destabilisation of the first zone because you are insisting on...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

In the future when we look back on this we will regard the Wembley Stadium development and the surrounding area as one of the big successes of London's government's intervention, although there are bound to be some bumpy bits along the way. Whilst acknowledging that Robert Blackman (AM) seems to be suggesting you should have a greater role in influencing Section 106 agreements than the Conservatives have previously conceded, would you generally subscribe to the view that your role as Mayor is to be strategic, rather than to intervene into what are perhaps local disputes in the area?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Bearing in mind history, for example, the Chalk Hill Estate which was developed very close to the old Wembley Stadium, it had an existing primary school developed for it, and it is a smaller development than is proposed around Wembley Stadium. As I understand it, the proposal for the moment is that £9 million will come as a Section 106 agreement to go elsewhere. The schools are all full at the moment. The figures we have looked at suggest that there will be a requirement for at least two primary schools as a result of these developments and a further...