• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I must say, Chair, I do not know how long this is going to go on but I am quite happy to spend two and a half hours duelling on this. I must say that the Mayor has clearly had a much more sheltered and naïve electoral life than, I suspect, anyone else in this chamber if he has never experienced any of this before. Certainly, I have experienced it time and time again from the Conservative and Labour parties over the last 30 years. Chair, I have a list here of false claims made by the Labour candidate. I...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Well, I am sorry to hear that, Chair, because there were four claims made where it was proved that Labour have made misleading statements. I think the Mayor is right in one thing: this does presage the campaign for next year, which, as with tomorrow, will again result in a Liberal Democrat victory next June. That clearly is what is really bothering the Mayor today.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I think, Chair, all I need to say is thank you very much to the Mayor. He has now given the headline for today and tomorrow: London Mayor predicts Liberal Democrat victory in Brent East. Otherwise, why would the Mayor, who happens to live in Brent East and probably knows what the result is going to be tomorrow, use his oral update solely to speak about a by-election campaign in one constituency? Perhaps, as this is Question Time, I should ask the Mayor whether he saw Newsnight last night and would like to comment on Michael Crick's report on the...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

You might like to reflect that one of the reasons that there has been an increase in affordable housing has been a perhaps belated recognition on that part of yourself and your officers that affordable housing has to be much more widely defined than traditional municipal housing, about which you were speaking recently. Many of the new schemes that have come onstream involve a high degree of intermediate housing in its various modes. Bearing in mind that the evidence that the evidence at the examination in public from the house builders and sellers was that the target of 30,000 was...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I do not underestimate " and you do not underestimate " the difficulty of getting towards the figure that we need. What I do not understand is why you have signed up to a goal that falls so far short of it. The suspicion must be that you do not want to sign up to a needs-based goal because of the gap that would be revealed and that your opponents will be able to say you have failed. Surely it would be better and more honest to draw a clear distinction and say "That is where are heading to, now...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

That is great that you acknowledge that this does not address the level of needs. What I do not understand is why, given that it is not the Government's strategy " the whole point of this is that it is supposed to be a partnership strategy involving the Government and the key agencies in London " have you signed up to a goal that falls so far short. Can you tell us, of the billion pounds or so a year of existing resources that this strategy is built upon, how many affordable units will be achieved by that level of...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Leaving aside the examination in public and the Plan, which was discussed earlier, is it not very disappointing that this strategy does not show the way to meet the need " not the supply " in housing? My initial enthusiasm at seeing finally a regional housing plan was quickly dashed when I realised that this strategy does not address the need. Can you explain why, given that the GLA is party to drawing up this strategy, the strategy does not address the need in London, which is at least 30,000?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

): It does not look like Capita has got them either.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

But if we can run the scheme more efficiently, cheaper and with a better quality of service and better integration, it would allow for better integration with the boroughs on traffic offences, with the police on bus lane enforcement and so on. Is there not a strong argument "

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Given Capita's record so far on congestion charging and given their record of incompetence in other areas, lots of the boroughs, such as Hackney, with huge disastrous implications and the Department of Education. Given your opposition to the privatisation of support for the public sector, is there not a strong case for when the current contract ends for bringing the service in-house?