• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

Could the Mayor clarify the position on the Galleon's Reach crossing? When he says that it is for the next Mayor to take forward, is he implying that he will do no work at all if the consensus across London is for that river crossing to be built?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

I was curious about whether the Mayor was in favour of a phased implementation, and delaying the more controversial aspects of the scheme - the road crossings.

• Question by: Victor Anderson
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

Would you not agree, though, that the consultants' report is entirely lacking in credibility? It makes no attempt to present a balanced evaluation of the issues. When they list the aims of the report, on the second page of the executive summary, they say that it "aims to present the case for" additional river crossings. On the first page, they say that the report was prepared "in order to take forward the case for a package of new river crossings". So the for and against arguments are not presented here: it is a straightforward "for" for all the schemes, including...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

I am grateful for that. And will you perhaps bear in mind, in working that proposal forward, that the heavy rail crossing presents an opportunity to gain extremely important objectives in your own terms: a proper orbital rail network to the east of London, and the opportunity to move freight?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

While I am grateful for that, Mr Mayor, are you aware that the draft of the report, which is already to some degree in the public domain and has been seen by a number of the relevant authorities, points out that, although there are benefits in the DLR crossing - which I would not dispute - the overwhelming long-term balance of regeneration benefit comes from a heavy rail crossing; and that that option is supported by all the relevant boroughs in London on both sides of the river, and by the neighbouring downriver authorities in north Kent and south Essex...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

It is good to see that you are still implacably opposed to this development. There are liquor licence applications coming up. There are huge campaigns and huge concern among the local community, who tell us very strongly that the campaign will go on regardless of what happens? Do you agree that the battle is not yet over?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

Are you aware that Tessa Jowell, the local MP, and I have both lodged objections to the magistrates for the application for 14 liquor licences? Would you be willing to support those objections, and do you share our view that a massive alcoholic facility of this kind, with numerous bars, is deeply inappropriate for a park which is heavily used by children and families?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

But would you also agree, Mr Mayor, that all the legal advice you have received has been, first, that Bromley Council has acted entirely lawfully in every respect in relation to these matters; and secondly, that there is no legal ground for the GLA to involve itself or intervene in this matter?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

Talking of being cheated by Bromley Council, are you concerned at the way in which it has applied SRB funds for the Crystal Palace project and redevelopment of the park? Is that something that the LDA can look at?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 18 October 2000

I wondered how far the Mayor is going to put money where his mouth is on this, and how far he will assist the boroughs by means of grant aid.