Search questions

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 19 July 2006

I just want to briefly return to this business of definitions, because some mathematicians have calculated that one of the reasons why there are so many variations in different countries about what is defined on the 60% median of people in poverty is because, quite simply, if you change your tax structure slightly, if in Britain the Government were simply to tax slightly more heavily those just above the poverty level, you could, at a stroke, to use an old phrase, remove half a million people from poverty. Now, even if we accept these definitions, and I appreciate, Kate (Kate...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 19 July 2006

Would you all support the idea, then, of removing from tax, the poor, as other countries are gradually doing? We should stop taking money away from the ones we are defining as poor, which leaves them poor, and creates dependency upon the state, while still worrying about the number of and the percentage of people in poverty. Surely, we should strip out their tax, get rid of their taxation, remove it. Many of them will then immediately not be poor. Surely we would all agree with that.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 19 July 2006

Do any of you know how our Structural Fund for Objective Two or Three, in London has been used to deal with things like poverty? Anything you could point to: that is a marvellous idea, or that is a very bad idea?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 19 July 2006

Obviously you all know my opinions on the EU and Structural Funds. It is a very bureaucratic, arthritic way of getting back a tiny proportion of the money that we have to give to the EU. Would it not be nice to have all of that money here to be able to do the things we would like to do with poverty, with unemployment, and so on? It's not an ideal way, and are we not going to lose a lot of that in the next aspects of funding, because a lot of the accession countries are going to take...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2005

Tony (Winterbottom), I have something else. The Mayor has just admitted that you use `expensive lawyers.' Those are his very words. When over 100 firms, then, employ lawyers to defend themselves in these situations in order to defend themselves and real jobs ' 11,000 real jobs in London ' they are then briefed against in the press. They are then briefed against and accused of being all sorts of things, which they are now completely fed up with ' that they are a handful, greedy; over 100 businesses employing 11,000 people are greedy. They are demonised, and then the lawyers...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2005

Do you see my point, Tony (Winterbottom)?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2005

Like-for-like ' is that like-for-like? I do not think so.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2005

One of these guys bought his land for £1.25 million. That was three years ago, and then it was valued by Porter Glenny, your people, at £1.071 million, a drop of 24%, when all the other land in the area, because of the Olympics, is going up.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2005

One thing that I am concerned about: you talked about compensation and about being fair and within codes. What does this mean, in real terms, to the businesses affected? I will explain the reason why I am asking this. Many of the businesses have come to me ' and, in fact, come to many fellow Assembly Members ' and have made clear that the terms they are being offered mean they will have to spend anything up to 20%, 30%, or 40% more from either existing reserves or raised money to be able to continue on the promised like-for-like basis...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2005

You say `overpay.'