• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

Like you, I welcome the opportunity for this development to take place on the right site, and I would therefore welcome any commitment to ensure that any sequential test is properly applied. I have seen the site because it is in my constituency, and I have also met with representatives of local residents who are concerned and who are opposed to the development. Would you be prepared to meet them as well?

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

The framework in the area that I am talking about is the Sustainable Development Commission's development framework, which looks at the social and economic as well as the environmental factors. I think that is something that could be used as a good tool in order to bring a robust framework to the work you are talking about.

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

You do need to have a framework, because we cannot take every site on its own and then have a developer buying the land and them not knowing.

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

Earlier on you talked about the Sustainable Development Commission and their wonderful work with regard to the airports. They have produced a framework, which is an incredibly useful and powerful tool to identify the sustainability it brings in terms of the social and economic factors, as well as the environmental ones. It does that balancing act pretty effectively, if a framework is properly applied. How are you ensuring that your Planning Decisions Unit looks at this framework and implements it for planning decisions? Secondly, when are you going to sit down and talk to the areas, in the east mostly...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

Do you not think it would be useful if you see for yourself what is at loss and meet the local people? You agreed to talk to the people of Kensington and Chelsea today, why not talk to the people of Wembley, or do they not matter?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

I am not opposing the development; we need those job opportunities there, but there are at least 16 more appropriate sites where this could take place. Finally, did you receive the gift of a pair of Wellingtons that I sent to you?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

It still gives power to the Government to privatise TfL's street management. You appear to be acquiescing in this case. Is there any truth in the stories that you are acquiescing in this in return for getting greater powers to create more red routes across London and takes those roads away from the boroughs?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

Are you are aware of the Traffic Management Bill, which is currently going through the Lords? Are you aware that the Bill, as it is presently drafted, gives Whitehall powers to put a traffic director in place who can completely overrule what you tell TfL? Are you aware of that? Are you acquiescing in that? How is that evidence of a Government that wants to devolve more power to the GLA?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

You are very upbeat about this, but Ministers have consistently said that they are not going to review the GLA Act. You are making the best of a bad job. The reality is that the majority of people in London government believe that the GLA should have greater powers. You tell us that there are even some in government who believe that, but the reality is that they have done nothing about it and they refuse to do anything about it. Our Chair, in her role as Baroness Hamwee, had a tremendous job trying to persuade the Government to make...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 28 April 2004

I think most people agree that the GLA, not necessarily the Mayor, should have more powers, and I do not doubt that you have been saying that for the last four years. The purpose of this question is to say that it is has been falling on deaf ears. You have been remarkably unsuccessful in actually persuading the Government to do anything. Given how desperate the Labour Government was to get you back into the Labour Party, why did you not make that a condition for your re-entry and actually do something?