• Reference: 2025/3521
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

At the roundtable event that I held for the launch of my July 2025 report, Changing the Narrative: Ending the acceptance of road death in London, a key point raised by attendees was that disability is not one of the road safety statistics collected and published by Government, nor is it in the STATS19 data recorded by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) after a collision. Will you lobby the Government and the MPS to record and publish whether anyone killed or seriously injured in collisions is disabled?

• Reference: 2025/3520
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

Vehicle information collected by Government includes weight, amongst other factors in the data, yet this is not included in the published road safety statistics, or in the STATS19 data gathered by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) after a collision. Recent research has shown that, when involved in a crash, the weight of a vehicle has an impact on whether people are killed and on the level of any serious injuries sustained [cross ref MQ 2025/1799]. Will you lobby the Government and the MPS to collect and publish data on the weight of vehicles involved in collisions, so the impact of...

• Reference: 2025/3519
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

A constituent has shared with me their horror at seeing a BAE System advert for its military drones on the Transport for London (TfL) network, specifically at Westminster Tube station. Clearly, this advert is aimed at the politicians and civil servants working in and around the Houses of Parliament. Given the loss of life and injuries associated with military drones in conflicts in Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Israel, Gaza and elsewhere, what justification does TfL have for approving this advert?

• Reference: 2025/3518
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

I was pleased to see the advertising campaign from Transport for London (TfL) announced on 16 September 2025: TfL launches new poster campaign to raise awareness of Highway Code rules, helping to keep Londoners safe on the capital’s roads. However, I was disappointed to see the new campaign missed further opportunities to address road danger reduction, specifically these two rules which were introduced in 2022: Rule 163 on ‘close passing’, that drivers “leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds”, and Rule 66 that...

• Reference: 2025/3517
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

A constituent has raised that: “In theory, there is a Londonwide ban on footway parking. In practice, most councils, for example, Bexley, will not enforce footway parking if it's on private land, such as shop forecourts. As a result, my local high street has cars parked on the pavement.” What action could you take, working with boroughs, to ensure footways are kept clear of parked vehicles so everyone can get around safely?

• Reference: 2025/3516
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

Transport for London (TfL) has told me (via email) that: “if an e-bike does not have its battery connected then it is not classed as an e-bike for the purposes of TfL’s ban on non-foldable e-bikes. Therefore, in these circumstances, the standard cycle restrictions would apply to such a device.” However, in a separate email to me TfL says it: “advises customers against carrying e-bike batteries with them due to the safety risks this could present.” The TfL conditions of carriage address customers carrying dangerous items, saying: “You must not bring with you anything that: you are unable to carry...

• Reference: 2025/3515
• Question by: Zoë Garbett
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

A constituent has asked for you to explain what is causing the delays in granting approval for Polaska's Purley Pool scheme, and could you make public the details of the directors behind Polaska's BVI-registered parent company?

• Reference: 2025/3514
• Question by: Zoë Garbett
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

Thank you for your response to 2025/3138, please can you provide more information regarding homeless support for people with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) and can you tell me: a) should the people with NRPF described in 2025/3138 have been able to access the GLA-funded homeless shelter, and b) are there restrictions on GLA-funded homeless shelters to not support people with NRPF?

• Reference: 2025/3513
• Question by: Zoë Garbett
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

How many people have applied for but been unsuccessful in joining your Seaside and Country Homes scheme in the previous three calendar years?

• Reference: 2025/3512
• Question by: Zoë Garbett
• Meeting date: 09 October 2025

The criteria for your Seaside and Country Homes scheme states: “Applicants should have no rent arrears or history of anti-social behaviour, and should not be going through possession proceedings or being evicted.” Applicants are also asked to disclose any history of ‘anti-social behaviour’ on their form. I am concerned this policy risks exclusion in an arbitrary and unjust way. Could you explain a) how you define ‘anti-social behaviour’, b) what criteria is used to exclude someone as unsuitable for the scheme because of ‘anti-social behaviour’, and c) how is ‘anti-social behaviour’ investigated beyond applicants’ personal declarations?