• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

Do you believe that the right use for this publicly owned land is to provide new homes for people already on the housing ladder, or to give them the opportunity? What about all the people, like the 67,000 families that are in the most appalling conditions in temporary accommodation and in the hostels that are bursting at the seam? What about those people, who are really the most needy in society? What is being done to help them?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

That confirms the information that I have, that the low-emission zones and the taxis on top of that are not enough to achieve the targets. That is why we need, essentially, to change the specifications of the vehicles driving on the roads, and that requires national action. Indeed, it requires European action. Despite the noises we hear from colleagues opposite, there is no point nationally in regulating for engine technology, if people can just simply drive into the country with a lower-regulated vehicle from a different country. Therefore, we need action at all levels, if we are to get there...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

Thank you, and if I can take it on from the low-emission zone, because reading the feasibility studies, it is clear that ' certainly in the first phases ' that does not actually achieve a significant reduction in PM10s. Indeed, the national Air Quality Expert Group, which published its report just a few days ago, concluded that `controlling background particulate matter must be a central part of a UK national strategy.' My question is what, beyond the low-emission zone, are we able to do to reduce the PM10 particulates.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

What will you do?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

It is going to be extremely difficult for you to explain ' and certainly to those Members of the Assembly who support you ' to say that with one hand, this publicly funded organisation opposes the third runway, even if it is only an arms-length organisation which it is. Let us be clear about it, notwithstanding what you say about appointing cronies and so on. I have to say, you have never been loath to appoint cronies to any of your boards. You talk about scouring the country for appointees. You did not scour very hard to find Tories to...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

You spoke very eloquently of the impact of aviation on climate change and the dangers. Less than 25% of the passengers at Heathrow are business-related, so surely London and the southeast is perfectly well catered for in terms of airport capacity. We do not need any more additional airport capacity or runway capacity anywhere in London and the southeast, and building more will just encourage them.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

Can I say, I was grateful to hear what you said about opposition for night flights, which I think, to be honest, I share. Have you made representations to BAA, to the appropriate Ministers, and the other agencies setting out clearly that absolute opposition to this proposed increase?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

I am glad you have drawn our attention to the LDA, because they are clearly out of step, because Honor Chapman (former Acting Chair, LDA) when she was your appointee on the LDA, said the LDA supports the expansion of Heathrow, because of the `significant impact of effective air-transport links on London's economy and that' ' it links with what you have just said ' `environmental issues arising could be mitigated.' Given that you appoint the members of the board of the LDA, I think you are in a position to tell the LDA what to do, so will you...

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

The danger is, Mr Mayor ' and I have indeed identified those marginals, starting at Greenwich and going right the way through ' that to speed up the planning process, Mr (John) Prescott's (Deputy Prime Minister) proposals of major planning issues being dealt with by the House of Commons and not by public enquiry could well be resurrected. What would your position be then?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 22 June 2005

I am glad you continued to speak in a trenchant way against the third runway. Do you also speak for the GLA family?