Skip to main content
Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Freedom Pass Restrictions (Supplementary) [1]

  • Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
No, it is about quality of life. What I am introducing is I do not want you to stay with just a health example. This is a quality of life issue, because we have evidence to suggest that elders are not able to use services like cheaper holidays, so it is something that we should be pushing.

Food Strategy - Trans Fats (Supplementary) [1]

  • Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
Will you join us in commending the five supermarkets? I will name them: M&S, Waitrose, Tesco, Sainsbury's, and the Co-op have all issued deadlines for the removal of trans fats from their own-label products. It strikes us that if the big five can be doing it in their own products, that we have got an opening there so that we can encourage them and push and hope that other major food manufacturers will come on board.

Charging for CCTV Footage (Supplementary) [6]

  • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
I will just say I think it is brilliant, and I wish the overground trains would be as good as the bus service.

Charging for CCTV Footage (Supplementary) [5]

  • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
That is a relief. I have to say, I thought the fact that there are now 60,000 cameras or so on the bus fleet, approximately 8,000 buses, was a real achievement for TfL. I think what I am worried about is that we are in danger of undermining that by having any kind of charging policy. You are saying it is going to be a minority of situations where there is going to be a charging. What kind of assessment has TfL done of this? Is there any sense in which the police are going to be discouraged from requesting...

Charging for CCTV Footage (Supplementary) [4]

  • Question by: Dee Doocey
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
I was glad to hear you say that the Metropolitan Police had been consulted and had agreed that they thought a charge was appropriate, particularly given the demands on the Metropolitan Police Service budget. Would you not agree that it really should be up to the bus companies to want to keep their passengers safe? Since they are making a profit, should they not be picking up the bill, rather than passing it on to the taxpayers through the Metropolitan Police budget?

Charging for CCTV Footage (Supplementary) [3]

  • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
OK. However, I can think of a situation where the police might have a very broad parameter for a search. It is only one year since there was a bomb attack on a bus in London. I am sure the anti-terrorist work, the surveillance work, that is necessary as part of anti-terrorist preventative operations, must include quite a lot of CCTV surveillance. So what is the situation there, with regards to anti-terrorist operations?

Charging for CCTV Footage (Supplementary) [2]

  • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
The installation of the cameras is relatively new, the system is new. This system that you are talking about now of Peter paying Paul for this footage is new. Do you think that there would be a need for some kind of a review of its operation? I would be concerned, for example, if there was a dispute between the police and a bus company about some work, and whether or not work would actually be held up. Are there any safety nets to check the operation of this new system?

Charging for CCTV Footage (Supplementary) [1]

  • Question by: Dee Doocey
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
I agree with Val (Shawcross). I think we need to keep a close eye on this. Can you just imagine what would happen if the Metropolitan Police turned round to the bus companies, and said, `Well, every time we come on the buses in order to protect the public, because they are on your buses, we are going to charge you'? I do think we are getting into dangerous territory.

Mayor's Report (Supplementary) [15]

  • Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
What, of course, you omitted to say from this interesting survey is that the strength of opposition is greater, with a significantly higher proportion saying they are strongly against the scheme, namely 33 per cent, than strongly in favour, 19 per cent. Did you not take that into account?

Mayor's Report (Supplementary) [14]

  • Question by: Angie Bray
  • Meeting date: 18 November 2006
I am asking a straight question. It appears that the people of Uxbridge may get some service, but it is the people living in between that appear to have been left out of all your calculations. They are the ones who do not feel they are getting anything.
Subscribe to