• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Privately, I have a grudging admiration for Tony Arbour because he is a very witty fellow who cares passionately about Richmond. But, today I think we are witnessing one of the most inept pieces of political stupidity that I have seen since coming onto the London Assembly because the extension of Crossrail to Richmond would be a massive benefit to the people who live there. An enormous benefit. They will be able to get to Bond Street in about 20 minutes and to their jobs in the West End and City. Their already massively elevated house prices will go through...

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Mr Mayor, I hope that you do not mean that literally if there is any opposition from Richmond you will immediately turn away from providing what I hope you will see as a piece of work that needs to look at the quality of service, however it is badged. And perhaps the first thing to be done is some serious research into where passengers who use those services now are going to and where people who could use those stations wish to go to. Can I also ask if it is not a great prize for West London if we...

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

The late Michael Young, who was of course the architect of the Labour Party's 1945 Manifesto, tried to get inserted into the Greater London Authority Act, a provision which would have allowed the formation of Urban, Town and Parish Councils in London. Would you be interested in that emerging from the review we have talked about?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Does the Mayor agree with the boroughs that there needs to be a review of the powers and funding of quangos, such as for example the Housing Corporation in London or perhaps English Heritage in London? Does the Mayor agree with the Tories here that there should be a review of the powers and funding of the Corporation of London? Does he agree that perhaps there should be a review of the powers and operation of the Government Office for London? You just say it privately.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

If you start to merge, say, inner city boroughs with more leafy suburban boroughs, how can you ensure that that will actually deliver some sort of equality of provision? Will it not be the case that the more articulate middle class people in the leafy suburbs are going to organise and fight for the bulk of the resources whilst the old inner city boroughs will be left high and dry?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

We have welcomed this inquiry and I think it is high time we have a sensible debate on the whole governance of London. Where I do not follow your argument, Mr Mayor, is that you seem to be equating poor performance with size. Can you tell me what evidence you have? According to you, poor performance of Borough Councils appears to have some correlation to the size of that Borough Council. What is your evidence for that?

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

But you know that Super Boroughs will provide much higher paid chief officers. Can you imagine what a chief executive of London Central would demand to be paid with all of his assistant chief officers, Lord [Toby] Harris, can you imagine what the leader of the council would be demanding in allowances for an authority of that size? More even than in yours, Lord Harris. Surely the point is that size is not everything. What you are proposing here, Mr Mayor, is a form of sub?regional governance, which in fact probably calls into question the future of the GLA. Because...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

It might be helpful if in advancing your case you perhaps used up?to?date figures. For example, I noticed that the October edition of Planning in London quotes Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) figures showing that 83% of Wandsworth planning applications are dealt with in eight weeks and that whilst Bexley does commendably well at 81%, sadly it is no longer top of the league table. But in any event, how do you think that Bexley's work on its planning applications is going to be assisted if it is put into some sort of Super?Borough? One based on your...

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

I have the good fortune and good sense, along with 260,000 residents of Wandsworth who are already living in a `Super Borough'. We cannot understand for the life of us why on earth you would put forward this proposal to have five Super?Boroughs. What are they going to be called? London Region North Central, West, South, East, or London District One, Two, Three, Four or Five? This is not the sort of thing that local people want to engage with. I am absolutely surprised that from your background you would suggest such a thing. The remoteness of this bureaucracy would...

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 22 October 2003

Oh dear, oh dear. Chairman, I am glad Ken is forecasting a Labour gain because I seem to remember that absolutely everybody forecast that Labour would hold Barnet and Camden comfortably last time. They were all wrong then and they will be even more wrong next year. Of course, it was the last Conservative Government that gave more powers to London Boroughs than ever before. One thinks of the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) which allowed Boroughs in inner London to conduct their own education services. What a great success Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea have...