Search questions

• Reference: 2010/0201-1
• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 10 November 2010

What agreement has been reached about the future of activities which are currently undertaken by the LDA, once the LDA becomes part of the GLA?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 10 November 2010

I did not hear the commitment around staffing that I was looking for. Could you agree to shift the language both sides from the orderly wind-down language to the language of rapid transfer? Simon, can you commit to look at the resources that we have available here - whether it is reserves or whether it is a media freeze on activity here - that is a lesser priority than some of the services that we are at risk of losing? What was a prize that, after a decade we would finally get this all together, we are turning to going...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 13 January 2010

I just wanted to carry on a point that Len has already picked up around the spending against priorities because, at our Budget and Performance Committee last week, of which I am a Member, we heard, exactly as you have confirmed this morning, that you have some underspends from this year that you are taking as part of your funding package for next year. I cannot remember the number. I just simply want to put some numbers on these things so can you just remind me, was is about £16 million? What is the amount of underspend from this year...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 18 March 2009

I think there would be huge scepticism on all sides of this Chamber and outside this Chamber that the LDA should be getting into funding secondary education. Mr Rogers, you started your answer by saying, 'I believe in the academy system.' Bluntly, what you believe or otherwise is of relevance to your advice to the Board, and I noted you did not answer the question. The question was, 'Has the Board yet considered whether funding secondary education is compatible with focusing on the LDA's core mission?' So can I ask the Chair of the Board to give us the Board...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

will happily acknowledge they are a step forward on current practice but I do not think they are achieving the sorts of goals that others, including the Mayor, are setting out. Can I just ask about the role of the commission? Again the commitment is in here, which is welcome in terms of the scrutiny through the Commission for Sustainable London 2012. Will that commission have the ability to question and push you back on these targets, or is this a given now?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

I want very much to follow those points. This is obviously hugely welcome, but in relation particularly to the water commitment of 20% on the residential buildings- so a 20% improvement on current practice - my information is that that equates to about 130 litre per day target, whereas the Mayor's own guidance on sustainable design and construction expresses a preferred target of 70 litres. So I really want to push you back and say that the targets in here are not stretch targets. And what are you going to do to move that forward?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

I absolutely pay tribute to the work that has been done, but I want to push this as far as we can go, and I want to be clear whether the commission that has been set up specifically to review this, is able to say, that figure is not far enough, we think you can go further. Or are you effectively tying their hands behind their back before they even start to say you can only comment on what is in here?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

Since we have both sides and perhaps Lord Coe, you could answer. Can you give us a commitment in public that the funding will be adequate to allow the commission to do its full job properly from your resources, or your part of the funding?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 15 February 2007

They have the scope to do that? Excellent. I am glad that is clear. Clear to me anyway. It may have been clear to others beforehand. In terms of their funding then, they clearly need the resources to do that job. Can I be clear where that funding is coming from? Because I was not sure why, Neale [Coleman], you were answering that question when surely it needs to come from the ODA, but also I presume LOCOG because this is a sort of broader strategy.