• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

Chair, thank you. Lord Harris, on your recent visit to Barnet, you declined the kind offer of a cup of tea in my flat which is around the corner from Finchley Police Station. I would love to have shown you Finchley Police Station which is operating out of a PortaKabin with an area for members of the public who call in. I think Lord Harris, with all due respect, you would have had great difficulty fitting in the area designed for members of the public but what really vexes me is you've got a young police constable there, fresh out...

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

I presume there must be some responsibility on you to have asked Graham how things were going - and perhaps this explains why it is that Sutton ended up getting their allocation. It was a punishment because one of the expectations that came from the formula was the 'opening of the shop' formula, which I know that Graham was very proud of, and which was going to have a positive impact on Sutton. When you go down there in February, and we look forward to welcoming you then, what kind of explanation will you give to Sutton as to why...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

I don't seem to see that I have got an actual answer to my question. Yes or no, really?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

Can I just pursue a little of what you just said in answer to Val? (Q261) Are you actually telling us that Lord Tope did not consult with you on this enormously important process which has been so eagerly awaited. It has been such an important event for all the boroughs across London - are you actually saying that you, as the Chairman of the MPA, were not consulted by Lord Tope at any stage on this particular process?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

My Lord, members have wickedly and unfairly endeavoured to malign and treat badly the noble and liberal Lord Tope of Sutton whose borough received no increase in officers. Will you actually join me and recognise that the noble and liberal Lord Tope of Sutton actually did chair the process to the best of his ability?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

I must point out Chair, I was taking the Chairman's own words that there had been a number of chops and changes in the course of the process which had given him difficulty when he is at various borough meetings as to knowing where we are. I hoped at least he'd answer questions in an accurate fashion and get back to the main point which is can he be sure the figures are robust?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

I actually almost would accept that the need for a review of the formula at this time would be unnecessary and would defend that. But I wonder if perhaps, Toby, you would like to reflect as to whether an outcome which is so hedged around by caveats, the consultation of which, however brave a face one puts upon it, is hedged around by question marks as to its extensiveness and clarity and which produces results which you yourself describe as counter-intuitive, can really be described as robust. Also it has gone through four or five changes in its gestation period...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 12 December 2001

I think it is clearly a demonstration of the fairness of the new RAF that it comes out as the way it does. I think one of the very great difficulties the 12 members of the MPA who are also political representatives have had is trying to separate themselves from their representative roles in one area fighting for more police, against what is a very robust and fair formula across London. But that is the whole point, if it is robust then it will stand up to questioning and not surprisingly the louder squawks were from very obvious boroughs but...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

Does it not follow from what you have just said in relation to that question and earlier replies that there has been absolutely no real progress of any substance at all? Do you not consider that that must reinforce Members' suspicion that this is purely a fudge for electoral purposes? If that is right, how can you justify going out canvassing for candidates of a party which is committed to a split between track and maintenance, and trains, which you have said will "cause people to die", and which you think is so obnoxious that it should be taken to...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 23 May 2001

Is the short answer, then, that these have not as yet been put back on?