• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

Roger Evans: I am sure that my constituents in Woodford would be interested to hear your views - The Mayor: Well, what is the unemployment rate in Woodford? The Mayor: You should ask your friend Bob Crowe, who of course is one of my constituents in Woodford - The Mayor: Have you have asked for his vote? Roger Evans: I think we have marked him as "against" on our canvass returns. [Laughter.] But that begs the question: when you are canvassing with your friends in Tower Hamlets this time around, will you take some time off to visit senior Labour...

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

Richard Barnes: I feel sure that the Mayor will join me in congratulating Meg Hillier on the sycophantic nature of her question. The Mayor: Not to me, it wasn't. Richard Barnes: No doubt she has taken over from the Blair Babes who are going to lose their seats in a few weeks' time. The question emphasises that this Government are once more making promises of jam tomorrow. They are actually investing less in London's transport infrastructure than the previous Conservative Government did. Does the Mayor join me in condemning the Government for only announcing support for the link between Paddington...

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

There is obviously a lot of support for your spending money wisely on this project, and some of us will have noted that you saved £80,000 by not being able to proceed with the public information drive, so-called, on the Underground during the election. So that is the first contribution.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

I think that the length of Darren's contribution and its content may be explained by the fact that the Greens have ceased to attend the Environment Structure Committee recently, so they are not exactly up to date with what is going on here. A look at your draft air quality strategy, Mr Mayor, reveals the following interesting paragraph on congestion charging: "In central London, traffic junction schemes will not be sufficient to achieve the emissions needed to meet national air quality objectives. The emission reductions required in the rest of London are in many cases also greater than can be...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

Darren Johnson: If we are to tackle London's traffic pollution problems, we need to do so at both ends. We need to reduce the number of vehicles overall; we need traffic reduction measures, which is why the congestion charge is so important and can be expanded; and we also need action on the dirtiest vehicles, to reduce their emissions by getting them off the road entirely or by retrofitting them. That is why we need both congestion charging and the low emission zone, and it should not be a fight between them. I can understand your concern about not wanting...

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

So you have £64 million for congestion charging, which spuriously is supposed to improve air quality - we all agree that it does not - and you are whingeing over £200,000 that would improve air quality for Londoners. The other point I want to make is that the boroughs - The Chair: Question, Sam. Samantha Heath: The boroughs desperately need guidance on how they can improve air quality, and the current LIPs do not identify how they can bid appropriately for money to improve air quality. Can you guarantee that proper guidance will be given to boroughs so that they...

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

Thank you very much. I want to nail this on the head. You said clearly in answer to some of the questions today that air quality in London can take as much as four years off your life. However, in your congestion charging strategy, the filthy diesels that belch out PM10s and nox are not going to be reduced. Therefore, if we are going to have a better air quality in London, we desperately need a low emissions strategy. The minutes of the last feasibility study group reveal a lot of spurious discussion about funding. Can you now guarantee that...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

Would you therefore, Toby, be wanting to recommend a better framework for the future for consultation processes, one that actually avoided some of these pitfalls to make sure that there is actually a better process in future consultations. In particular I would have hoped that you might have a policy of freedom of information within the Authority because, although there was, as you say, some information given that was pretty inadequate, there were some key bits of information that were requested, such as the report that was done by PAC, which has never actually been released. Are you going to...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

I certainly agree with your criticisms of the process and I would add the fact that, as far as I am aware, a number of other important organisations - the blue light organisations, the criminal justice system, the probation system, crime and disorder partnerships - were not consulted either. Can I ask you, did Graham Tope consult you at all about how to go about a consultation process on this issue?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

A very quick question - having a new and assertive Chair, Chair. You seem to do an awful lot of polling on a range of issues, and I cannot imagine that any of that could be construed as advice to the Mayor. That suggests that it should be published and made available to the Members of the Assembly, including presumably any political questions you might be asking.