• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 05 September 2001

Isn't the real reason for your slow movement on this the fact that this scheme will not raise as much money for your budget as the congestion charge. You're really only interested in levying taxes on Londoners rather than improving their quality of life?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 05 September 2001

Would you not agree though that the low emission zone proposal is going to be less expensive than congestion charge, it's less contentious than congestion charge and it will be more effective when it comes to cleaning up London, which is what some of the public at least still expect congestion charge to have done, because they've been misled in that way. And the low emission zone actually has widespread support, certainly around the table here and amongst the public. Wouldn't you be better doing that rather than wasting money on congestion charge?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 05 September 2001

Thank you. Obviously the widely respected Rocol report that you were talking about is not the one that we have widely discredited and that's out of date by now. You must have another report. I just wondered if you had any prospect that you could hold out for Londoners that there will be an improvement to air quality given that you have already admitted that your congestion charge proposal will not improve air quality at all and this proposal, which would, is going to be held over until your next election. So can we all be expecting not to be...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 05 September 2001

I'm concerned that you're being over cautious on this. I understand why you might be, after the reaction to congestion charging, particularly from several hundred inhabitants of Westminster who apparently replied to your consultation on that. In fact you've got a huge amount of support round this table for an LEZ in London. That might not count for much, we might not be able to take the voters with us, but on the other hand, I don't believe you have the same opposition.

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 05 September 2001

Is it possible when you consult on the air quality strategy, that you could include a question on the principle of having an LEZ in London?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 05 September 2001

That's quite depressing news. Because of course this is another visionary, radical commonsense initiative that we'd very much hoped for and I know the boroughs themselves hoped that stage two would be completed by March because it would have helped them with their air policy strategies. So is that a definitive answer from you?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

I suspect that it could be more of a propaganda campaign, because clearly local people are not convinced of the safety of what you and Val have supported. If Eileen did approach Val about it, she would have discovered, of course, that Val Shawcross, as the Labour Chairman of the authority, and her Labour colleagues had voted to remove the fire engine, whereas the local Labour MPs and the local Labour council are in favour of having the fire engine returned. A similar dichotomy exists with the Liberal Democrats, except that Louise Bloom abstained, thus proving she and her colleague...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

I thank you for that, and I would be grateful for a copy of the response and the original letter. When you answered that question from me, you advised me to approach Val Shawcross as the Chair of the Fire Authority. Did you advise Eileen Gordon to do that?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Given the concern that has been expressed about heart attack recovery rates, will the Mayor be prepared to sponsor, as part of the extraordinary expenditure on consultation around his transport strategy, some work to assess whether the arrival of speed humps is actually killing more people, who do not get to hospital in time as a result of heart attacks, than it is saving in terms of deaths because of reduced speed?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

How would you help me, then, with a small problem I have? [Laughter.] I am not talking about the small problem to my left. Unfortunately, Fire Brigades Union is briefing its members at the moment against participation in what they call "first responder and co-responder schemes". The London regional newsletter says: "The General Secretary issued a circular to all members on 26 January instructing members that, until Conference has arrived at a definitive position" - ray of hope, ray of hope - "all members should oppose the introduction of and should not participate in any new first responder or co-responder...