• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

That is a new angle. I had not been aware that it was all about fighting crime in London, but I suppose you can create a new excuse every day.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

I note you say, "We would like to see these improvements." The fact, surely, is that we must see these improvements before its introduction - it is not a matter of "liking" anything. I suspect that we have slightly got you on the run on this one. I think you realise that most people are not impressed by the case you have made for the improvements you say will be there before the charge is introduced, which is why we heard you last week suddenly plucking 200 virtual buses out of the air. I noticed that your final transport strategy...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

Graham Tope: The Green party would do it for £5,000. [Laughter.] The Mayor: It would double their income. Darren Johnson: So it is a question of possibly finding some cheap research. Graham Tope: Yes - the Green party. [Laughter.] Darren Johnson: We cannot under-estimate the huge benefits it could bring. One estimate puts the benefit to landowners around the Jubilee line extension at £16 billion, yet none of that profit was harvested to pay off the £3 billion it cost Londoners to complete the project in the first place. It is important to get the debate going, to put some...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

That is certainly welcome in terms of specific projects. Do you not think that, in terms of an overall approach, sponsoring some research into land value taxation for London could be of great benefit, and that the huge increase in value of land can be clawed back through site or land value taxation? There is growing support for it now not just from the Communists, if they still exist, but from the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, Friends of the Earth and others. It is time to get a debate going on this. Would it not be useful to commission...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

It is interesting, isn't it, that the Liberals always claim policies but choose not to mention them at tricky times like elections? I was not aware that they had been campaigning on that in the recent election, certainly in the London area - Louise Bloom: You did not read our manifesto, did you? Angie Bray: - and I can see why. The problem is to separate businesses from other values that may go up - such as for housing and people who own their houses in areas where new public transport arrives. Surely it would be difficult, for a start...

• Question by: Louise Bloom
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

I certainly will be able to provide that information for you. As you may know, we have done quite a lot of work through the Henry George Foundation and various other groups on this subject, so I will be able to provide examples of Liberal Democrat councils which have put this into practice, and look at how we can do the same for the benefit of Londoners.

• Question by: Louise Bloom
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

I should point out, because Darren might not know, that it has been Liberal and Liberal Democrat policy for about 100 years to have some system for land value taxation. Ken may know that there are people in our party who are totally obsessed with the subject. I wanted to slightly widen the debate by looking at ways of encouraging local participation in regeneration projects, using land value tax as the base - for example, to look at things like credit unions, as has been successfully done by Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh Borough Council, at ways in which local developments can...

• Question by: Victor Anderson
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

One thing we would need to make it a more humane document is some policy proposals on Challenge 6, which is creating a city for people. That is the only one of the six challenges that proposes no policy directions at all, and that is a very obvious gap in the document. There are many other similar gaps.

• Question by: Victor Anderson
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

I do not think that is an answer to any of the four parts of my question, which was very precise. It reflects wishful thinking on your part about the way in which this document is going down. There is a lot of concern around, particularly about its over-emphasis on the City of London and the financial services sector, and the under-emphasis on other parts of London and its economy. Although I can see that you may well support these proposals, you should also recognise that there is a great deal of concern about and opposition to them.

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

How soon are we going to get it?