Search questions

• Question by: Florence Eshalomi MP
• Meeting date: 07 December 2016

Florence Eshalomi AM: It is great to see you here as a London Member of Parliament (MP) for Croydon, not too far from my constituency in Lambeth and Southwark. One of the main issues that has been on your agenda and I am sure in your inbox as well has been the issue around Southern Rail. In the run-up to the mayoral election, quite a number of the candidates committed to looking at further rail devolution in London and it is right to say that it is something that has worked quite well with London Overground. Given that there is...

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 07 December 2016

Tom Copley AM: Good morning, Minister. Thank you for being here today. I listened with interest to your exchange with Assembly Member Devenish. It feels to me like your predecessor in the previous Government seemed to put all his eggs in the Starter Homes basket and in the affordable homeownership basket. What you seem to have said by saying that there is no silver bullet is perhaps that that was not the right approach. Do you and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) support a full range of tenures and affordable tenures for London and does that include...

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 07 December 2016

Len Duvall AM: I would like to return to the issue about rail privatisation and the issues around that. Can I thank you for your earlier statement in saying that you would come back before us? We are very grateful. We know that you do not have to and we look forward to further opportunities to pose questions to you on topical issues. In terms of the transport announcements made yesterday and the links with the wider issues around economic performance, would you agree that the issues in Kent and London coincide? We all want the best for the rail...

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 07 December 2016

Nicky Gavron AM: Minister, good morning. I wanted to ask you a question about permitted development rights, which allow a change of use from offices and other workspaces now to residential without going through the planning system. Everyone around this horseshoe agrees that we need more affordable housing and we need more housing generally, but we also desperately need affordable workspace. Change of use is offering a windfall in terms of upping value to property owners and to developers. What we are seeing in London is that rents are going up and, in many cases, land prices are going up...

• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 07 December 2016

Andrew Dismore AM: Could I go back to rail devolution? In the Evening Standard today there is a letter from Chris Grayling [MP, Secretary of State for Transport] to Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson wrote to Mr Grayling supporting the idea of rail devolution. The letter says this: “Thank you for your letter of 17 April about the possibility of TfL taking on responsibility for a number [of] rail services in the London area, but outside the Greater London boundary. While I am generally a great supporter of what you are doing in London, I would not be in favour of...

• Reference: 2015/2495
• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Is it possible to expand Heathrow Airport without having a negative effect on London's environment and the health of Londoners?

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: In answer to a question earlier, you suggested that Gatwick would not deliver more long-haul flights, but your report’s analysis shows that by 2050 Heathrow will deliver 133 long‑haul routes while Gatwick will deliver 131 and both airports will deliver a total of 405 destinations. Given your view that a key objective for expansion should be to facilitate new connections or more marginal long-haul routes to emerging markets, is it not the case that both airports actually fulfil this objective?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Thank you, Sir Howard. I am just looking at the table on NPV and social benefits on page 147 [of the Airports Commission’s final report]. Without being economists, we are trying to grapple with the issue of calculating the benefits and costs and the negative and positive aspects of the proposal. While you say Gatwick is a feasible proposal, you are saying the economic benefits would be considerably smaller than Heathrow. If you look at the bottom line of the calculations you have done - and I accept there are a lot of variables in here...

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Navin Shah AM: Following up Caroline’s question on surface transport, Sir Howard, could I explore further the surface access investment issue? Your Commission estimates the surface access investment required for servicing an expanded Heathrow will be £5.7 billion. If you look at that against the TfL estimate, it reckons the sum required will be £20 billion, which is four times higher than your estimate. I believe this is due to the fact that the Airports Commission has included a number of unapproved and unfunded schemes in its assumptions of what the transport situation will be around 2030. Is that not...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: I just wanted to come in, if I may, Sir Howard, with a quick reaction to that comment. You have encapsulated a problem but you have it the wrong way around. You have said the problem is that TfL is trying to talk about growth that is not attributable to Heathrow. The problem is the other way around. Your projections are not taking account of the fact that all of those schemes that you have referred to there and that you are taking for granted will happen, like Crossrail 2, are actually being driven by the...