• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

On many other services, on the business service, there is a case for a single number for London, not 33 numbers. I absolutely agree about the delivery of the service, it is a question of taking the initiative and coordinating it London wide.

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

I am sure every Londoner welcomed the new announcement about investment in housing in London. However, in the short term, in the current crisis of housing shortage, one of the things I think is most tragic is that we have a very high turnover population, a churn of population, and it seems to be worst in the poorest areas. In Lambeth, overall, about 25% of the population change address in a year, and they are often people moving from bedsits to hostels, sleeping on floors. Do you think this is an issue for the funding of the public sector? It...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

Most of us would be open-minded, and we encourage you to be open-minded, about how you achieve it, but my concern is that the concentration of the requirement of 35% for social rented housing, when London already has a fairly significant supply of social rented housing, may not leave enough space for the improvement of supply of cheap housing to buy which is what predominately key workers, who we are losing in London, want to have. How are you going to address that in the Plan?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

Would you agree that a good deal of the evidence suggests that the issue of affordability is particularly important for people who want to be able to afford to start to buy, to get on the purchase ladder? And do you think that a target of only 15% in the intermediate housing sector is sufficient to meet that, or should that be given greater priority?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

I take it then you would welcome some ideas?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

TfL does get £1 billion of income from the Government and there is an issue of priorities. If you live anywhere near Nunhead station, you would say that ought to be a first order priority.

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

Ken, I think you need to understand the urgency of the situation. If public transport capacity in London is to be improved, the over-ground stations in South London are appalling and are being under-used because people are afraid to use them at night. Two key things: you used the words "unstaffed stations". The improvements that can be made at overground stations are undermined by the fact that those stations are not staffed frequently at night. When they are staffed, many of them only have one person in the ticket office and that means that vandalism, the destruction of toilets, the...

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

To be clear, I am not asking for a spending commitment. Essentially, there is a vagary in the document here, talking about could as opposed to would. I think that the one thing that the London wide Fuel Poverty Programme could do is actually co-ordinate the funds that are already available in London. Going on from that, one of the issues that I wanted to highlight here is the work with the utilities. It actually is not as clear in the Energy Strategy as it could be, and I am just trying to really pull out your sentiments on whether...

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

For people who are listening, so that they know exactly what the question was, the question was that there are no plans directly helping reducing poverty in London under the Mayor's corporate cross-cutting priority in the inequalities agenda, given that London is the richest city in Europe and yet has the biggest concentration of people living in poverty, in Inner and East London, in Europe. As we all know, with the 43% of children living in households where the income is below half the national, not the London, average income "so, we do have a serious issue here. What I...

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 16 July 2002

It says also in the same proposal, Proposal 76, that it could co-ordinate an action partnership. Do you think that itshould now say it would as opposed to could?