Search questions

• Reference: 2019/14227
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

Further to my question 2019/0272, could you now provide a target publication date for your Public London Charter?

• Reference: 2019/14228
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

Further to the commitment you made in our discussion on my question 2018/3040, on 22 November 2018, relating to details of meetings with ministers since you became Mayor where you or your officials have lobbied for rent control powers for London, could you now provide me with this information?

• Reference: 2019/14229
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

Further to my question 2018/1779, when will further sites on GLA land be brought forward for bidding by community-led housing groups, as part of your Small Sites, Small Builders programme, and how many such sites will be included in the next phase?

• Reference: 2019/14230
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

With reference to my question 2017/2811, since your 2018 review of name-blind recruitment in the GLA, what proportion of, and how many, recruitment processes in each of the GLA group of organisations have used name-blind shortlisting for job applicants? Are any future changes planned to procedures in each organisation to increase this proportion?

• Reference: 2019/14193
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

How has your work on the proposed development at the St Ann's Hospital site in Haringey helped to make this an exemplar of community-led development, and not just a business-as-usual, developer-led project?

• Reference: 2019/12661
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 04 July 2019

How has the Housing Infrastructure Fund process helped progress the OPDC plans?

• Reference: 2019/12013
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Why did it take so long for you to refer concerns about short term letting management company advertisements on the Transport for London (TfL) network to your Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development?

• Reference: 2019/12039
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

In May 2019, San Francisco, one of the most technology-friendly cities in the world, announced a complete ban on the police use of facial recognition. The San Francisco city legislature announced the ban on the basis that police use of facial recognition was so fundamentally invasive and inherently likely to endanger civil rights and civil liberties that it should never be used. Will you follow this leading example and prevent the use of intrusive and authoritarian police facial recognition in London?

• Reference: 2019/12041
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Table 2 of the London Policing Ethics Panel final report on live facial recognition, published in May 2019, showed that 29 per cent of Asian, 23 per cent of Black and 28 per cent of mixed ethnic groups would stay away from live facial recognition monitored events. Do you agree that it is unacceptable for these groups of Londoners to be disproportionately affected and deterred from attending public events?

• Reference: 2019/12042
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

At the UCL event, Learning from Police trials of Live Facial Recognition on 29 May 2019 the Metropolitan Police Senior Technologist acknowledged that their live facial recognition had shown notable gender bias towards women, misidentifying them at higher rates than men. On this basis alone, how can you allow the Metropolitan Police to continue using this technology, notwithstanding the additional significant human rights and privacy concerns with this technology?