Search questions

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 03 December 2008

A question for the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority: Many of my constituents were delighted to see the departure of the former Commissioner. You are now engaged in recruitment of the new one. Those same constituents have been horrified to see the scenes on television of Metropolitan Police officers acting in a way that would not go amiss in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Will you ensure that candidates for the top job at the Metropolitan Police are those who are not going to carry on this system of working and that those candidates who are busy running to the media -...

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 03 December 2008

I would like to revisit the issue about constitutional privilege. Can I ask the Chairman of the MPA and Acting Commissioner, does constitutional privilege mean that anyone can be above the law, including MPs?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 03 December 2008

One of the most troubling aspects of this affair is the extent to which national security is again being cited as a justification for all manner of action. I am not asking you, Sir Paul, to comment on that, as you would understand the national security implications, if any, of this affair. I would want to make a point that we see from Mumbai how some threats to our security are very real and the nation is now looking to you as Acting Commissioner to give impartial advice on national security matters. Can I put it to you that one...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

We are referring to the programmes which the boroughs have already subscribed to, which was not the 50% target. I need only refer you to those boroughs which said that they did not want 50% - that said they wanted 40% - and those boroughs provided, in their 40%, infinitely more houses than the total. I merely refer you to a borough like Richmond which produced 300% more than the target.

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

So why have you set such a low limit? Why not 25% or 30%?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

I have not got time to get into an argument with you so I would just like to ask you a question if that is all right. I know that sales of social housing have fallen this year and there was actually an increase in the number of social housing, but it is always like a leaky pot, isn't it: as fast as you build the social housing there is the right to buy process, and so you are losing those houses? Doesn't the Mayor have any powers to remove the right to buy on new social building?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

I think we are going to be able to explore all of that. We have given you a long opportunity for a publicity stunt! Can I first of all congratulate the person who wrote this report; I think it was Alan Benson (Head of Housing and Homelessness, GLA). It is an extremely readable report, but probably it is readable because the plot is a work of fiction. We take the view that the central targets, contrary to what you have said, are unlikely to be met. We say this because of your track record. There has only been one year...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

That is entirely wrong because you have not addressed the central part of the thesis. 50% of 500 houses is infinitely less than 30% of 2000 houses, so, if the only way they have been able to meet their affordable housing target is by reducing the overall quantum of houses built, it suggests that the policy is an entire failure but you are able to meet your statistical figure.

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

Finally, what are you going to do about the still considerable number of empty properties that are not brought onto the housing market at all?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

I have asked him where these buildings are going to be built and who is going to build them. I also draw to his attention that the largest chunk of building which is being proposed is at the Thames Gateway where the Strategy says there will be 100,000 new dwellings built, but, in July, in reply to a question from me, the Mayor said there were only going to be 40,000. In effect what I am saying to you is this: the figures that you are producing relate to slogans and have no relationship whatsoever to what has actually been...