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

But the fact is you actually based your second decision on a letter from the Department of Education. It does seem that their information was wrong. The Canada Water site is actually larger. If you take the two sites A and B together they are actually larger than Patterson Park. I am concerned that the fact that the Canada Water site is actually valued at around £13 million and has now been put on the market for a possible retail site has played some part in Southwark Council's decision.

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

Will full minutes of such meetings be made available for the Assembly, save in exceptional circumstances where commercial confidentiality applies? Can I suggest that would be a means of making sure the suggestion that things are not cosily fixed up in advance, perhaps for some gain to one of the parties, is best avoided. Will you consider that?

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

Does that include access to your meetings with developers?

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

Do you think that that power would make it even more important to have transparency and equity in the way in which you exercise your planning powers? And in light of that, will you revisit the suggestions by the Assembly that there should be proper scrutiny by elected members of this Assembly and proper input by them into your planning arrangements and the manner in which you take your decisions?

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

Thank you for that answer. The more we looked at this the more concerned we have become because it does look as if the Department of Education actually sent that letter to you in ignorance of the Kennedy report which clearly says that the Canada Water site is actually a better site. Is it possible for you to go back to the Department of Education and actually ask them on what basis they wrote that letter to you. I am concerned that the Corporation of London itself knew that the Canada Water site was perfectly acceptable. They stood up in...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 December 2002

On the same line of questioning, on this cross-cutting theme, do you not think that an approach which increases the emissions from idling car engines increases stress, increases road rage and slows down emergency vehicles, such as ambulances responding to incidents, might actually be harmful to the health of Londoners, despite the assertions of biased members of the Green Party.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 11 December 2002

I think that actually Londoners will be interested to hear that £20 million of this so-called money that is coming towards the health of London is going straight into the Mayor's pocket. I'm not certain that's where it should be aiming. It's meant to be aiming for front-line services, I would have thought. What about the health of people living in central London, given that we've already heard from nurses that if they don't get exemptions to bring their own cars to work when they're on night shift, they're going to be applying for transfer out of the central zone...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 11 December 2002

I wondered if you thought it good for the health of London that the National Health Service in London in a letter to us reckons the cost of the congestion charge to them is going to be somewhere near £20 million. Is that good for the health of London?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 December 2002

Is the Mayor's policy of lengthening the red phases on traffic lights all over London a healthy thing to do or not?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 11 December 2002

You mentioned earlier the low emission zone. Research suggests that that would have quite an impact on air quality in London. Do you have any further information on that?