• 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: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I was waiting for the Mayor to respond to Eric Ollerenshaw's question. My question follows on from Eric's because I think Eric raises a very interesting point about the nature of local in the context of London politics. Obviously, London is a mixture of villages and different localities and I would welcome the Mayor's views on the importance of local links and local relationships of people who stand for public office. In particular, obviously he is aware of the long record of Robert Evans's links with Northwest London as a former MEP and the untiring work that he has done...

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Will you sign the international petition calling for a truly independent scientific panel to look into this?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Can I applaud the Mayor for his leadership and attention to the responsibilities of his office in dealing with public health? He has rightly highlighted that it is very much as issue of equality and we can talk as much as we want about education and that is very valuable work but actually, it is the poorest children in London who suffer most from tooth decay. What I would ask is whether he would support a wider public health programme in addition to any debate about fluoridation, that would reduce the unnecessary onslaught of sugar on children's teeth. You will...

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

You say that you are doing all that you can but clearly the Government inspector does not think you are doing all that you can otherwise they would not have ordered this change.

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

No, but you have hit the nail on the head when you said people are happy to travel for leisure but really do not want to spend, if they can avoid it, half the morning and then half the evening travelling to and from work. Public policies can actually make significant impacts on that one way or another.

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

We are never going to solve the problems of public transport if we are always encouraging people to make longer and longer journeys. This leads to more and more crowding on our transport system and more and more pressures on it. Surely the objective of trying to reduce people's overall need to travel is a reasonable and sensible objective, whatever the current constraints.

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

You say the others are small changes but they do make a point about minimising the need to travel. You previously admitted when you were being scrutinised by the Assembly's Planning Committee that the London Plan would lead to an increase, rather than a decrease, in the need to travel. Also, in evidence to the EIP, Transport for London (TfL) confirmed that the average trip made per person in the morning peak would rise by 13% by 2016, which is quite a significant increase in people's travelling. This is not a minor point; this is surely a major point, is...

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

It is very much a matter of opinion, in relation to the examination in public, the extent to which that the process endorsed the overall plan or not. Certainly from our perspective on the Assembly side, there were a number of major points we made in our submissions where the inspectors seem to have sided with us. That said, I quite understand the difficulty of making major announcements in drips and drabs. You do not want to get in to a discussion and when we get on to housing later, let us stick to the London Housing Strategy rather than...

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

What confidence can you have in that when TfL has over the coming years a deficit, or a funding gap, of some £560 million when Government so far has indicated reductions in grant to London Transport of £150 million plus and £200 million plus? Does that not speak of a pretty bad deal that you have done for London in negotiating with Government when we have actually ended up with less grant coming in than we are raising? We have actually ended up with this £560 million funding gap. Does that not fundamentally undermine your whole plan?