Search questions

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 17 October 2012

James Cleverly (AM): Thank you, Chair. I had hoped to subtly remind you that my understanding is that Members were here to ask questions of the Mayor and receive answers from the Mayor. Unfortunately, there have been a number of occasions where Labour Members have finished their line of questioning with a statement and you have curtailed the Mayor's attempts to answer the implied questions in those statements. If we are envisaging a change of standing orders where Members are allowed to make parting shots or closing statements, whatever you want to call them, perhaps you could inform the Assembly...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 23 May 2012

John Biggs (AM): Can I request a personal explanation?

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 14 March 2012

A point of order, Chair.

• Question by: Gareth Bacon MP
• Meeting date: 22 February 2012

My colleague Victoria Borwick is very keen to come to her question, which is the next one on the agenda, so I am going to pull my question, Chair. I am withdrawing my question.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 18 May 2011

Clearly, it is welcome to have a focus on outer London and my colleagues from Sutton and North Cheam are quick off the mark and have already, as it were, put in for some money even though you have not actually told people what the criteria is. But I, too, am concerned about your funding mechanism. It is one thing to take the money off taxpayers and to grant it to outer London boroughs. It is another to borrow because you have to pay the interest on the borrowing and you have to pay the money back. I am a...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

I appreciate one size does not fit all and I totally agree with that. Would it be fair to say that the way to go forward would be where there is an excellent product, that you would like to use best practice principles in order to extend those practices across the capital?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

You will obviously keep us updated as you make your progress round?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Indeed. That is showing up in the home safety checks which I think have risen from around 9,000 a couple of years ago to approximately 20,000 in the year that has just ended and the target for the current year is approximately 30,000. Even if you add all that up, that is 40,000-50,000 home safety checks. One or two per cent of Londoners have had a home safety check. Should we not be looking for a real huge step forward in this area?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

On the Thames Gateway development issues, you said you have not specifically commented on the flood risk issue. Could I ask that LFEPA does look at the recommendations from the Assembly's Environment Committee that the plans be rigorously tested?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Even if that is not going to be a statutory function, obviously there is a direct pressure that flood risk places on LFEPA's activities. Should you not be pressing for stronger planning policies to limit new development in high-risk flood areas, and actually really take a key part in this debate about Thames Gateway?