• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I am glad you are going to lobby 10 Downing Street on increasing this. In the remaining time, can I ask you where your plans are for the plastics recycling plant?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

As I said initially, this incinerator already has planning consent, it is going to go ahead in any event, and yet what you are doing is placing an increased tax burden on Londoners who, if you have your way, will be polluted by somebody else's waste. You are being a dog in the manger, are you not?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Of course, this is a case where it will be infinitely cheaper to use the incinerator than anything else. Once again, it is an example of you levying an additional burden on Council Tax payers simply by your wilful intervention, rather than doing the things which the boroughs, who are members of this Waste Authority, think are right and proper. Really you ought not to be meddling in such things.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Of course, the reason the Assembly was not enthusiastic about this is because there are relatively few other alternatives available at the moment so, in effect, you would be loading a cost onto London councils. You would be creating another increase in Council Tax because of course they would just pass the bill on to consumers. Do you not feel that if tax increases are made they should be used to provide services rather than just to pay other taxes?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

It is funny you should say that, because I was going to ask you about this incinerator at Slough. It already has planning consent yet you have decided to tell ' indeed strong-arm - the boroughs who are members of the West London Waste Authority from using this facility. In effect, what will happen if you are successful ' and of course you will not be ' but if you were to be successful, this incinerator will be burning somebody else's waste rather than Londoners' waste. If your exception to incineration relates to pollution, Londoners are going to be polluted...

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

The Government put in 50%. We have had less than £200,000 to pay for social services and everything else.

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

The Deputy Prime Minister has stopped this funding. Wandsworth is considering whether the amount of money they put into the warden scheme would be better used by employing PCSOs. Of course, at the present time, as you have stated yourself, just over half of London have had their dedicated teams, and so the fact is that the MPS cannot offer any more PCSOs at this time because they cannot recruit them or train them in time to replace the wardens. It is the Deputy Prime Minister's fault; he should have thought it through much more seriously.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I would assume then that your instinct would be to condemn any such action by boroughs unless it took place within a thoughtful and consensual, shall we say, policy framework supporting the interest of their residents and the rest of London.

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

An old foe of yours, Bromley Council, is refusing to install more speed cameras on the basis that they penalise motorists. Are they putting politics before saving lives?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Some boroughs in London want to roll out 20mph schemes borough-wide, including where I live in Southwark. Is that something that you would encourage TfL to fund?