• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

You hold the key to whether this project goes ahead or not. If the finance is secured and in place and if the provision of the ice-rink and the swimming pool is also secured, is there any reason why you should not give it the go-ahead?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

This has been a very hot issue for a very long time. Next week I am due to submit a petition on behalf of the ice-skaters. There is great anxiety about the decision-making timetable because the current ice-rink is in a very fragile state. Basically, it has been run down for a number of years so there is concern to see the whole process moving quickly. I have a letter from the skaters, which they have asked me to pass on. They say `We expect the current negotiation to be concluded this summer and are genuinely hopeful that the scheme...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

We are all travelling hopefully on this issue, and everybody supports the ice-rink proposal, but if the project does not go ahead, their concern, as I have raised previously, is that there is no fallback provision. There has been no negotiation by Lambeth Council about what safety net is in place to save the ice-rink and the swimming facilities should this project fall through. Do you have any thoughts about whether or not there should be a safety net proposal and how that might proceed?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

I welcome the change in tone both from the Mayor and indeed Val Shawcross because up until now they have been dragging their feet on this. It is most welcome. I understand there was nothing new in the financial package that was under discussion this week; it was always going to be in place. It is helpful that the details are now clearer, and anyway it would all have been in the Section 106 agreement so I think the Mayor's fears were over-stated. Can I ask you particularly about TfL's role in this? One issue of concern is the fact...

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

So you are saying that we are effectively spending money on what is a lobbying body, with no meaningful influence, power or access. What specific items have they lobbied upon in the last six months? What reports have they made back about London and legislation which affects London?

• Question by: Joanne McCartney
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

Given what you said about the work that goes on in lobbying in Europe for London's interests, do you think we should be further supporting the GLA and its partners in that work in Europe?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

I am very interested to hear the comments from the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) member. Can I take it you now assume that despite the indications given to you last week, UKIP will not now be supporting the idea of Brussels House being ring-fenced and protected in your budget?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

You mentioned London House's involvement in the decision-making process in Brussels. Surely this cannot be, as bodies outside of the EU institutions are not admitted to the decision-making process. Can you name a specific instance in which London House's involvement has prevented or altered a new law being imposed upon London or Britain by the un-elected EU through directives and can you point to a source where such a claim can be substantiated?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

Certainly, councils like Lambeth and this one in Southwark want to achieve those targets. What will the effect of that be on the totals? Currently, completions in affordable units are running at about 6-7% per year in London and the London Plan says up to 15,000 per year, even though estimates of need are well in excess of 20,000. How will the increased subsidy help and what is your assessment of whether we are going to reach 15,000, which in itself is not enough?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 July 2004

One of the sad facts of the delay is that 300 new housing units, of which 102 (40%) are affordable, have therefore also been delayed. Clearly, we would like that figure to be higher than 40%. The key aspect there is the element of public subsidy that goes in. Can you tell us your analysis of John Prescott's (Deputy Prime Minister) 4% increase in funding that he announced yesterday? He says this will mean an extra 10,000 affordable homes nationally by 2008. What will be the effect on London, and will it flow through into schemes such as this one?