Search questions

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

I don't want to upset Tony Arbour but unless Richmond have moved their position from June you won't be waving any flags at all, even with the Union Jack, regardless of what LOCOG do or not. Can I just ask you a very quick question around London House 2012 and the use of this building? In our agenda, in paragraph 4.18 of the report, it says that really this is only going to result in rooms being less available to staff and Assembly Members from July 2012 to September 2012. Do you accept that is the only issue? We are...

• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

Thank you, Neale, for your briefing today. Turning back to the line of inquiry that Len Duvall was talking about, the outer London boroughs and the £50,000, I will take a slightly contrary view from some earlier colleagues. Wouldn't the man or woman on the Lewisham, Croydon, Bromley omnibus feel that they have been let down a bit? Wouldn't they be disappointed with the fact that they are only getting £50,000, although the fact is they are contributing? Wouldn't they find it quite odd that all these other boroughs are whingeing that they are not getting enough money when they...

• Question by: Kit Malthouse
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

They start on 2 July to 24 August at Hyde Park.

• Question by: Victoria Borwick
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

If I could just continue on that Live sites point because, as you say, a number of issues have been raised by various residents across London. Could you just confirm, will all the Live sites be licensed?

• 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?