Search questions

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 02 December 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: I wanted to correct the impression that was given that the way it has been operating at the moment has been simply about opposition Members [on LFEPA] getting at the Mayor. The fact is that the Mayor has insisted on managing by Direction even when there has not been an impasse, including on issues over which there has been cross‑party agreement by LFEPA Members. I just wondered if you could focus a little bit on what impact the Mayor’s insistence on management by Direction has had. To be honest, we have had Directions on all sorts of...

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 02 December 2015

Richard Tracey AM: Chairman, probably this is one for you as the politician of the two of you. The fact is, surely, that government, particularly local government, has been changing very considerably over recent years. That is accepted. The straight point to you: is it not correct that perhaps LFEPA in its current form is out of date and past its sell‑by date, really?

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 02 December 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: We obviously have to make sensible use of resources in the face of cuts. Some of the new technology that could come online is really interesting and will offer exciting possibilities, but do you agree with the Londoner who contacted me yesterday to say that £283,000 for a website rebuild is bordering on scandalous?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

Perhaps to address another part of your presentation, which links to this, you talked about the need for the LDA to have credibility with business, but are there not occasions when business has to have credibility with Londoners and the LDA needs to say that the employment, training and mentoring practices of the private sector in London are short-sighted, are disadvantaging London and, in the end, will disadvantage those businesses? I am being quite strident in pursuing that. Perhaps your Chair should answer that.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

Is that a priority for the LDA?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

Which other priority is a lesser priority as a consequence of that? What I am trying to get my head around is the extent to which" Obviously in life you have to pursue a lot of relatively easy targets and priorities, but you need to take some challenging ones on now. I think, and I think a lot of my colleagues and constituents believe, that that is a really vital one for London and we have not done enough on it yet.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

My question is on joined-up government and all these relationships with the ODPM, the DCMS, the DTI, GOL and all the rest of it. Did anybody inform you of the Government's new scheme to move some 80,000 jobs out of London? In a sense, there is a contradiction between the long-term plan that London is going to increase, and the Government actually trying to cut down the increase by moving jobs out of London. Was there any consultation with the LDA on this?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

The thesis behind this question is that the Assembly has a statutory responsibility to hold the LDA to account, but you are not a creature of regional government; there are these multiple accountabilities. If we are to do our job in holding you to account effectively, we need to see how these conflicts are working, and we talked offline about the difficulty of, for example, making available publicly a Government Office for London quarterly assessment of you. I think we need to explore further how to see that relationship working better with government. Moving on to the second question relating...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

In relation to the mayoral interventions, either directly or through advisors, at the Economic and Social Development Committee you said that there had never been a time when you had actually refused a request. There had been vigorous discussions, but the answer had never been `no'.