• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Jenny Jones (AM) said you were going soft and wobbly. Can you refute that and can you again give your commitment to continue to listen and pay heed to the concerns of residents on the boundaries? I am speaking about residents of Islington who are on the boundaries of the Congestion Charging Zone and would welcome a buffer zone at that point.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

As you know, we have opposed the westward extension for substantive reasons. I want to draw you back into those reasons. The economic, social and business impacts are still not defined beyond one year's worth of figures. A business is usually only given three years to break even. It would jeopardise the first zone by extending it into a second zone before you are absolutely sure and even you are wobbling around the timing of the charging ending period. You have already mentioned the boundary issues, then there is the destabilisation of the first zone because you are insisting on...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

In the future when we look back on this we will regard the Wembley Stadium development and the surrounding area as one of the big successes of London's government's intervention, although there are bound to be some bumpy bits along the way. Whilst acknowledging that Robert Blackman (AM) seems to be suggesting you should have a greater role in influencing Section 106 agreements than the Conservatives have previously conceded, would you generally subscribe to the view that your role as Mayor is to be strategic, rather than to intervene into what are perhaps local disputes in the area?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Bearing in mind history, for example, the Chalk Hill Estate which was developed very close to the old Wembley Stadium, it had an existing primary school developed for it, and it is a smaller development than is proposed around Wembley Stadium. As I understand it, the proposal for the moment is that £9 million will come as a Section 106 agreement to go elsewhere. The schools are all full at the moment. The figures we have looked at suggest that there will be a requirement for at least two primary schools as a result of these developments and a further...

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

As you are well aware, this proposed development around Wembley Stadium is quite controversial locally. One of the key concerns of local people is the fact that taking into account the initial developments around Wembley Stadium of some 4,000 flats plus the other proposed developments in the immediate vicinity, would mean the potential development of about 11,000 flats in an area of some two miles' radius. Are you content with the fact that there are no proposals for either school facilities to be developed within this planning application, or sufficient car-parking facilities, or indeed proper community facilities for the people...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

What consideration have you given, or will you be giving to the impact of the redevelopment works themselves on the local transport infrastructure? I understand that three local stations, Wembley Central, Wembley Park and Wembley Stadium, may well have to shut simultaneously during the work, which will clearly wreak havoc on local residents and their transport needs. What consideration have you given to that?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

In the future when we look back on this we will regard the Wembley Stadium development and the surrounding area as one of the big successes of London's government's intervention, although there are bound to be some bumpy bits along the way. Whilst acknowledging that Robert Blackman (AM) seems to be suggesting you should have a greater role in influencing Section 106 agreements than the Conservatives have previously conceded, would you generally subscribe to the view that your role as Mayor is to be strategic, rather than to intervene into what are perhaps local disputes in the area?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

I am pleased to hear this because I had been told, and this must be a mistake, that you felt it was a private matter for each of the board members. My arithmetic is different from yours because the answer last time was that the total was £242,884, and assuming that you do not draw any remuneration, the other 13 members would average over £18,500. So perhaps there are some differences in calculation.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

I do not recognise that description at all! Will you perhaps consider issuing guidelines as to how members' fiduciary duties towards their employers should be dealt with? You will understand there is particular interest in the position of Mr Crow (General Secretary, RMT), who by any standards is in a difficult position, having duties to his members and duties as a board member.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 24 June 2004

Can I also welcome your commitment to making things more transparent as far as the TfL board is concerned, and express the hope that you will extend that to all the other functional bodies. May I ask you to confirm that you will try to adopt the practice that is done with the health authorities whereby in both public information and in the annual report the levels of remuneration of all board members, whether executive or non-executive, are spelt out specifically? Will you consider going even further in the interests of transparency and spell out the levels of remuneration of...