Skip to main content
Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 2

  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    I wonder if you could tell us how you're proposing to ensure that the boroughs, when they collect recyclable materials, actually have a market for them and they're not left with a large surplus which they have to dispose of themselves?
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    Except there's nothing more disillusioning for the residents of London who assiduously separate recyclable materials then to discover that those materials are in effect going straight to landfill. For example in the London Borough of Sutton, which turns out in fact to be the pariah of recycling authorities rather than allegedly the angel of recycling authorities, glass which is collected in the London Borough of Sutton goes directly to landfill. It does not pass go and it most definitely doesn't collect £200, and this in the London Borough of Sutton and I suspect over the whole of London is creating...
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    What about the general point that I've just made to you about those residents who are very keen to collect recyclable materials, but if they discover that these recyclable materials are not actually being recycled at all how would you suggest that borough councils explain that to their residents?
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    So are you suggesting that if there is to be no market for recyclable goods because of perhaps a glut or something, then boroughs should in fact say to their residents, 'Well it's an enormously costly exercise to sort and collect and so on. Just tip it in the ordinary refuse as you would have done before the days of recycling.'
  • LDA Board Meetings

    • Reference: 2001/0216-1
    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 10 October 2001
    The public sessions of the LDA board concentrate mainly upon incidental discussions about strategies of the LDA and other GLA family members. With the LDA responsible for spending over a quarter of a billion pounds of public money why is it that the Board meets mainly in private? What do you have to hide? .
  • South London's Economy

    • Reference: 2001/0223-1
    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 10 October 2001
    What action is being undertaken to boost South London's drifting economy? .
  • London's Inward Investment Programme

    • Reference: 2001/0226-1
    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 10 October 2001
    Is London First Centre the right organisation to conduct London's inward investment programme? .
  • CBI Report

    • Reference: 2001/0228-1
    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 10 October 2001
    The CBI has suggested in a recent report that RDA's lack focus; have little influence over business and are subject to too much meddling from Whitehall. With which of these conclusions do you agree? .
  • LDA Board Meetings (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 10 October 2001
  • LDA Board Meetings (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 10 October 2001
    Thank you very much, Mr Barlow. Actually I am not terribly encouraged at all. Although the public probably won't even attend, as we all know what happens when we do open public bodies to public attendance, the public would merely like to know that they can come if they wish to come and they probably wouldn't even disturb you. So I'm not sure that there is anything to be frightened of in opening the thing up to the public. But what you have told me is that you believe that you are demonstrating open government but, as I have already...