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

Search questions

Filter results

  • Infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    To save time here, I would be grateful if we could be sent that costing assessment, and if you also have any assessment of the costing, as you rightly say, of the social and health infrastructure, that would be helpful
  • Infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    That would be helpful for the Assembly to have. The final question I wanted to ask was this: given that much of the infrastructure and demands do not stop at the Greater London boundary, what joint work has been done with, for example, Essex and Kent County Councils and the surrounding regions to see (a) what can be done to make sure that the infrastructure provision is properly aligned and (b) what economies of scale and what joint lobbying work can be done to advance the Gateway issue?
  • Infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    It would be very helpful to have the costings as far as they go on infrastructure issues. How advanced are we in terms of who is going to pay for all of this?
  • Implementation and Partnerships (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 13 November 2002
    Can I ask John and Victor, do either of you think that recycling rates in relation to municipal waste disposal will be helped by scrapping wheelie bins?
  • Implementation and Partnerships (Supplementary) [13]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 13 November 2002
    That's of course talks about sensible use of wheelie bins. On the other hand to go around talking about removing all wheelie bins would surely be crack-pot.
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [10]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    It follows from that that I imagine you wouldn't be minded to support further applications for incineration unless you were satisfied that the technology was safe and that the communities that might be affected by new incineration proposals were satisfied that they wouldn't suffer any detriment?
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [11]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    One of the things that the government has done is to set a target of some 45% of household waste to be recovered by 2010. Now recovered, as I understand it, for those purposes includes incineration.
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [12]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    And as I understand it, what you envisage is that more use of the new technologies would be something that hopefully could set people's minds at rest as to what happens to residual waste?
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [24]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    Have you had much discussion with government along those lines? What progress are we making with ministers there? Are they thinking the same way?
  • Mayor's Draft Waste Strategy (Supplementary) [25]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 14 November 2001
    And the final point, is it do you think a wise state of affairs applications for certain types of plant to go to the Department of Trade & Industry? Would it make more sense for these matters to come to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions?