• Question by: Victor Anderson
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

This policy has recently been reaffirmed by Michael Portillo, who is obviously a very important member of the Conservative party, and will probably be its leader in a couple of months. [Interruption.] This policy will have a big impact on London, but Central Office tells me that they are willing to make an exception for London and keep the LDA. [Interruption.]

• Question by: Victor Anderson
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

Bob Neill, do you know anything about this?

• Question by: Louise Bloom
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

Are you saying, then, that you would agree with Lady Runciman, who said, "Our most far-reaching recommendations have been rejected. That leaves us with a law that is out of touch with reality, misleading in its rank of relative harm, disproportionate in its sanctions, dependent on police discretion to be workable, and out of step with public attitudes."? Possibly the key thing there is "dependent on police discretion". That particularly worries me because what Sir John Stevens says and what actually happens out there on the street are two completely different things. As you said, there is the question of...

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

Why don't you and I set up a Puritan Tendency here, Ken?

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

I was delighted that you included a paragraph on the alcohol and drugs strategy in your report. I see that you are going to meet Keith Hellawell, and have promised to report back to the Assembly. May I politely suggest that it would be helpful if you were to involve Members of the Assembly who are active in health - particularly myself and Elizabeth Howlett - before drawing up a programme of action, because this is a subject which it is quintessentially important for the Assembly to get hold of as well.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

Do you recall that, at the People's Question time, when you were asked about cannabis, you referred to cannabis and Ecstasy in the same breath? Do you agree that there appear to be considerable dangers attached to Ecstasy, which may not be the case with cannabis, and will you distinguish between them and not promote legalisation of Ecstasy at the same time as relaxation of the cannabis law?

• Question by: Louise Bloom
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

As I am sure you are aware, the residents groups we are talking about - the Aylesbury Estate Tenants Association and the Burgess Park Committee - are very aggrieved because they feel that their views are not being taken into account, and that, in the presentations by officers to which you referred, they were clearly told that routes in which they are interested, which do take account of where people live and work, were not on the table for discussion. Are you now saying that that is not the case, and that the possibility of alternative routes backed by residents...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

This is in my constituency, and I have quite a lot of contact with interested parties in the area - perhaps much better than my Liberal colleagues who do not represent the area and do not, so far as I know, live there. The public meeting that we held in Lambeth last week with David Wetzel was a considerable success. Another public meeting is booked for Monday night in Southwark town hall, which has been widely advertised by TfL. We would appreciate a chance to talk to the Mayor, in his capacity as Transport for London Chair, about the problems...

• Question by: Louise Bloom
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

Are you aware that one of the favoured current proposals actually slices Burgess Park in three? I am told that there have now been 33 campaigns to save Burgess Park from various different planning applications, bits of development and all the rest. Will you therefore ask the TfL officers to take account of this valuable piece of local green space, so that it is not included in routes that would slice it up?