• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Because it is car-based, there is congestion there, but it's the confluence of the M4 and the M25 which generates most of it, not Heathrow as a destination. Are you going to put barriers on the M4 and the M25 and charge people?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

The principles you lay down about congestion charging in your answer to Angie Bray I find intriguing. You talk about reducing the short journeys, people jumping in their car and driving 200 yards down to the local shop, you talk about people popping across the zone and, indeed, applying that to congestion. Last Tuesday you called again for a congestion charge around Heathrow. Now, few people jump in their cars just to pop to Heathrow. It is a destination of choice and for specific reasons. Few people drive across the perimeter areas just to cut from Hillingdon to Hounslow, there...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

In view of Westminster's shameless piece of political opportunism, which apparently isn't supported by their voters and also is exceptionally lazy because they've based almost their entire objections on the TfL document that's already been produced for general release, would you agree that this is perhaps the time to fast-track the whole idea of a low emission zone, because this would, at least, allay the fears of the inhabitants of Westminster and all the other peripheral boroughs?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Would you say that Westminster Council and politicians have made it worse for themselves by not co-operating over the congestion charge and therefore they will probably themselves have inflicted more suffering on their residents than your actual charge?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

First of all, clearly I am the constituency member covering Wembley and I should declare a formal interest as a former member of the board of Wembley National Stadium. What is clearly the case has been that a whole number of decisions have been taken about the Wembley project without proper reference to the public interest. That was the role on which I was one of those who was supposed to be trying to defend the public interest on the Wembley board. It got increasingly side-tracked by the Football Association, but more particularly by a sequence of very bizarre decisions...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Are you saying, therefore, that you would wish in the future to have the power to compulsorily purchase land on a substantial scale in London? Is that what you are saying?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Can you tell us what you are doing to achieve that?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

On balance, I welcome the decision you made on Patterson Park and it does benefit a number of my constituents in the City and also people who live in Wapping who currently have a very poor choice of secondary schools. But I think we are in danger in this question of losing sight of the bigger picture. The question in my mind is about the bigger picture and this relates to your previous question about affordable housing. We really need to tackle regarding the needs for homes is the public ownership of greater areas of land in London. Not snipping...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

The fact is though, we are actually losing green space and if you go down to Southwark - I know you are terribly busy - but if you went down there and you looked at the spaces that are actually being suggested as replacement green spaces, it is a nonsense. One of the green spaces is already in use. There is no replacement, as such, and particularly with the equestrian school. It is not an appropriate place to build and I really urge you to fight the Government on this because, you said earlier about being concerned in your London...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Would you be prepared to write to them and suggest that?