• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 26 January 2005

We will very happily take that debate when you go round in a few weeks time saying vote for Mr Blair, vote Labour, of the inconsistencies in your own position. However, in terms of what is before us today is it not a fact that central Government having gifted us some of the resources London needs is not paying for the running costs? Something like £14 million a year is in LFEPA's budget to pay for running costs for Resilience assets, both those that Government has provided and those that London taxpayers have had to pay for. Is that fair?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

If that option was available. One of the issues brought to attention is the difficulty of deaf and hard of hearing people when announcements are made at the last minute and so they have no opportunity to adjust their behaviour whether it is a cancellation or to catch a train. I did not understand within your answer whether anything had actually arrived that would change that situation. It seemed to me from what you were saying that the technology is now available in dot matrix form, but that clearly is not the experience of people. Therefore, when there is a...

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Can we ask the Mayor to send us a written update on what is happening about ensuring that guide dogs and their keepers or walkers can use the Underground? It is in the system somewhere in TfL and I would like an answer to an outstanding question which is about 18 months old.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

On any station that is receiving an improvement through the PPP, is there an audit of all the things that are promised in the upgrade, that they are delivered and implemented and operated? My concern is they do not get paid.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

I thought it was going to be a monthly arrangement so I hope I can hold you to that. My second point is really that the real property speculator in all this does seem to be the Mayor himself actually. I do not want to go too far in this because I know my colleague has got a question on it but it really is unbelievable when it is him that has actually admitted that he is banking on the fact that he is going to be able to sell the land at considerable profit to help repay some of...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

First, a question if I may to Mary Reilly on this issue of how many businesses are now happily signed up and how the progress is going because I have had one letter from you but you did undertake, when we spoke about this at Mayor's Question Time, that I would have a regular update. I have written to you in the last two weeks asking what has happened to that regular update and I have not heard from you since. I am just slightly disappointed with that. Perhaps you could guarantee now that I will get that letter in...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Thank you for that. All the businesses I have spoken to, including of course Pullmans et al, have all said that there is no circumstance in which they -- they are clearly aware and they had never asked. Can you confirm then that some businesses have asked for amounts of four, five, six times the amount? Have they, because you have not actually answered that question? You said they have aspirations but the point is that the Mayor said that people ' in a very public statement in the Sun newspaper ' that they are asking, many businesses are asking...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

No they did not. You have got that wrong, once again. I made that quite clear at the last meeting with the Mayor here when he answered questions on it, they did not issue such a press release. What they did was, they put out a statement, which made clear - a statement which Strettons stand by - saying that after the Olympic Games is over that land will be worth x amount, five, six, seven, eight times the amount - but they were absolutely clear that they were not asking for that. Further, I also understand from a large...

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

I want to come back to you David (Lunts). You talked about the spend on (section) 106 (planning) gain and, when you see a planning application, everybody is rushing to benefit from the 106 gain. Can you clarify, whose 106 gain is it? Is it the boroughs? Is it the LDA's? And what lever do you as the GLA have to pull if it is the borough or if it is the LDA? Let us have some clarity on the record about who is responsible for 106 spend around the whole Olympic site or going as far out as Thames...

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Given we are talking more specifically about the flood threat, could you give us an update on some of the work presumably you are doing with the Environment Agency on the Thames Estuary 2100 Project (TE2100), in light of the Thames Barrier not likely to meet its present specifications from 2030 onwards?