Search questions

• Reference: 2012/0064-2
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 29 November 2012

Well, these are questions that arise from issues and it is really for both of you. I am very concerned, and I have raised the question with the Mayor on a couple of occasions, about the increasing percentage of matters that do not go to trial. Your officers spend a great deal of time, a great deal of expense, catching criminals, banging them up, getting them charged, and then the matter does not go to trial. For example, in London there is a gap between cracked trials and trials, which, for some other reason, do not go ahead because they...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

I want to ask you about the bunting as well. Originally that was the only thing that was being proposed by you that I received with unalloyed joy because I thought, 'Here we are, outer London is actually going to get something. We are actually going to be able to celebrate something'. Now I hear it is some vast advertising campaign for the sponsors of the Olympics.

• 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: 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: 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...

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

Only 31% of the houses built in 2005/6 were affordable, which was a grand total of fewer than 8,000. What you have done is simply cherry picked the figures.

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

Where are they going to be built, Neale, these houses?

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

How many of the houses in this programme have already been built and are going to be bought from the private market?

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

So there is double counting?