• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I would certainly welcome that. Have you detected any change in thinking on the Government's attitudes towards aviation?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Obviously, you had discussions with the Government when the White Paper initially came out on aviation, but since your Sustainable Development Commission reported and produced a very good report that you welcomed, have you specifically discussed that report?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Yet you think the Government is still running scared of decisive action.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I can see that. Of course, the frightening aspect of this is that under the Tampere II discussions late last year, which are designed to dovetail in with the European Constitution, it was made clear that Europol will be turned into a proper operational police force, and that there is a considerable amount of this, which is Article 3-275 and Article 3-276, in the new European Constitution or the proposed one. Could you possibly confirm that you will look at these Articles which I will provide to you and confirm that you might oppose them?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I take your point on this business of it being theoretical, but the problem is that similar was said with regard to the situation with journalists in the EU. When journalists investigating fraud, like Hans-Martin Tillack, were raided at the behest of the EU's fraud office, OLAF, their investigations and their equipment was taken from them and, ultimately, it was made quite clear that it was done incorrectly, wrongly, and on the basis of wrong assumptions and statements. However, the German courts have now made clear that those immunities do stand and that actually there is nothing the journalist can...

• 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...