• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

You have the advantage of being an elected politician. Potentially this is about the appointment of people to very large salaries who are unelected politicians.

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

If at the end of that process the Assembly passes a resolution which either endorsed the decision that you'd made or said that we could not endorse that decision, would that alter the approach that you would take?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

That therefore implies a substantial increase for a number of individuals, potentially if that is the direction in which it goes. Could I be clear what your attitude would be if this Assembly called before it one of the individuals appointed to these new roles of Executive Director, as we are entitled to under the Act, interviewed them in public in relation to the person specification and then resolved at the end of the day that they did not meet the standard which the Assembly thought was appropriate for a post of that scale and that pay?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

But these arrangements would in practice mean that those staff would be by-passed. You do realise of course that because of the construction of the titles - and I suspect we will need to see how the job description and person specification develop - it looks as though they are tailor-made for individuals who currently operate on the second floor of this building in your advisors' corridor? I have no idea whether that's in your mind or not, but under those circumstances are you aware that you are liable to the charge of this being `rewarding cronies' and giving money...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

Will you keep the Assembly informed of the steps you propose to take in relation to any such appointments, to make sure that you comply with the requirements of Section 67(6) of the Act, that is to say appointments to be on merit?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

Your letter indicates I think specifically at least five, and possibly more, of the appointments will be made exercising your powers under the Act. That I take it, is your powers under Section 67(1)(b). Do I take it therefore that these posts will be subject to open advertisement?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

When you were elected two years ago, you quite clearly and very publicly stated specifically you would not use these powers available to you under the Act. What has caused you to change your mind two years later?

• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

I think that's very helpful in terms of the legalities of this. I would look at the political side of this because it seems to me that the proposals you are making are sending out some very powerful signals. One is it implies that you do not have confidence in the existing senior management of the Authority. Is that the case?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

I've been promoting that for a long time so I am pleased that Mr Meecher has listened to what I've had to say and I am pleased that you are supportive as well, which seems to me to be an excellent idea. But do you think enforcement is a job for the MPS or is it a job for borough Litter Wardens and the borough's people if they are going to keep the fines?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

What advice will you be giving boroughs who are involved in your campaign, and I guess implicitly the ones who aren't, because they can always look at what you are doing, on dealing with vandals and people who drop litter?