Search questions

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

will happily acknowledge they are a step forward on current practice but I do not think they are achieving the sorts of goals that others, including the Mayor, are setting out. Can I just ask about the role of the commission? Again the commitment is in here, which is welcome in terms of the scrutiny through the Commission for Sustainable London 2012. Will that commission have the ability to question and push you back on these targets, or is this a given now?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

I want very much to follow those points. This is obviously hugely welcome, but in relation particularly to the water commitment of 20% on the residential buildings- so a 20% improvement on current practice - my information is that that equates to about 130 litre per day target, whereas the Mayor's own guidance on sustainable design and construction expresses a preferred target of 70 litres. So I really want to push you back and say that the targets in here are not stretch targets. And what are you going to do to move that forward?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

I absolutely pay tribute to the work that has been done, but I want to push this as far as we can go, and I want to be clear whether the commission that has been set up specifically to review this, is able to say, that figure is not far enough, we think you can go further. Or are you effectively tying their hands behind their back before they even start to say you can only comment on what is in here?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

Since we have both sides and perhaps Lord Coe, you could answer. Can you give us a commitment in public that the funding will be adequate to allow the commission to do its full job properly from your resources, or your part of the funding?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

They have the scope to do that? Excellent. I am glad that is clear. Clear to me anyway. It may have been clear to others beforehand. In terms of their funding then, they clearly need the resources to do that job. Can I be clear where that funding is coming from? Because I was not sure why, Neale [Coleman], you were answering that question when surely it needs to come from the ODA, but also I presume LOCOG because this is a sort of broader strategy.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

Then I would like to conclude by pushing you to go further and to be public with people like us and, indeed, the 70,000 contributors so that in things that, as it were, I get, I can see you living out what you say your policy is, which is in the question, that you are progressively improving over time. Currently, I do not see that, and I think you should.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

Thank you, and I welcome you and thank you for coming. This is an important topic if not one that the media particularly get very excited about. This question is all about socially responsible, ethical investment, and you will be aware that there is quite a debate as to whether there is a choice to be made between returns and ethics. My own view and what is behind this question is that if one is positively engaging - which is, I think, what your strategy is - then the two agendas come together, because the long term sustainable return is...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

So if you have an approach or a strategy around engagement on these sorts of issues, is that in the public domain? Again, I could not find if you are engaging, which is the right strategy, what you are actually engaging on. And if you do not, will you promise to put that in the public domain?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

I think that would be very helpful, and I think certainly we would like it. I suspect the pensioners and prospective pensioners, would also like it, because then they can at least get into a dialogue with you. The fourth thing that the Fair Pensions organisation asks for is to incorporate your approach to responsible investment into your investment mandates and into your fund manager selection and monitoring. Do I take it from what you said that you do do that?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

Can I just ask you to confirm you're responsible investment stamps, and what I would regard as a false choice between returns and responsible investment? If we cast this less in terms of not investing in so called bad things, and more in terms of investing in good things that will contribute to long term sustainablity, is that a summary of your position? My colleague, Jennette [Arnold] has rightly given me some evidence to say that ethical investment can outperform mainstream, but my hunch is that is ethical as defined in terms of sustainable, rather than screening out the bad...