Search questions

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 02 December 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: I wanted to correct the impression that was given that the way it has been operating at the moment has been simply about opposition Members [on LFEPA] getting at the Mayor. The fact is that the Mayor has insisted on managing by Direction even when there has not been an impasse, including on issues over which there has been cross‑party agreement by LFEPA Members. I just wondered if you could focus a little bit on what impact the Mayor’s insistence on management by Direction has had. To be honest, we have had Directions on all sorts of...

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 02 December 2015

Richard Tracey AM: Chairman, probably this is one for you as the politician of the two of you. The fact is, surely, that government, particularly local government, has been changing very considerably over recent years. That is accepted. The straight point to you: is it not correct that perhaps LFEPA in its current form is out of date and past its sell‑by date, really?

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 02 December 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: We obviously have to make sensible use of resources in the face of cuts. Some of the new technology that could come online is really interesting and will offer exciting possibilities, but do you agree with the Londoner who contacted me yesterday to say that £283,000 for a website rebuild is bordering on scandalous?

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 17 October 2012

James Cleverly (AM): Thank you, Chair. I had hoped to subtly remind you that my understanding is that Members were here to ask questions of the Mayor and receive answers from the Mayor. Unfortunately, there have been a number of occasions where Labour Members have finished their line of questioning with a statement and you have curtailed the Mayor's attempts to answer the implied questions in those statements. If we are envisaging a change of standing orders where Members are allowed to make parting shots or closing statements, whatever you want to call them, perhaps you could inform the Assembly...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 23 May 2012

John Biggs (AM): Can I request a personal explanation?

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 14 March 2012

A point of order, Chair.

• Question by: Gareth Bacon MP
• Meeting date: 22 February 2012

My colleague Victoria Borwick is very keen to come to her question, which is the next one on the agenda, so I am going to pull my question, Chair. I am withdrawing my question.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 18 May 2011

Clearly, it is welcome to have a focus on outer London and my colleagues from Sutton and North Cheam are quick off the mark and have already, as it were, put in for some money even though you have not actually told people what the criteria is. But I, too, am concerned about your funding mechanism. It is one thing to take the money off taxpayers and to grant it to outer London boroughs. It is another to borrow because you have to pay the interest on the borrowing and you have to pay the money back. I am a...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

All right, David. One thing that I am a bit concerned about is that, if you look, for example, at the actual stadium and you look at the original quote of £280 million, the Government has now acknowledged it will be higher than that because of the fact that you want a legacy from it; you do not just want a temporary 80,000 seat stadium. Now, the problem is that that tends to indicate to me that no account initially was taken of a possible legacy use, so therefore there is at least another £100 million in costs. Ignore the...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

If I turn to other areas, you mentioned - Sydney and Athens, and so on. My problem with the situation is, if you look at Athens, and, five years earlier, at a lot of the other venues, and with things like rowing and so on, these things were promised to be legacy. If you look at all the original stuff, it said, `this will be legacy'. But the rowing area now has, sort of, environmentally despoiled a wetlands area. The problem is, I cannot find any situation where I can trust claims. It all seems very pie in the sky...