• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Can I just make another little prediction as well, as we were right on the £10 billion. You and others have quoted figures about jobs; 40,000, 50,000, 60,000. From everything else, including things like the IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research) report and so on about Sydney and other aspects, practically everybody seems to be saying the Olympics do not provide long term jobs. I have to say to you I cannot see anywhere where anybody has truly quantified that there will be many long-term serious jobs as a result of the London Olympics. Can you just quantify exactly what...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

If it is going to make a profit, as you say, can Council Tax-payers have their money back in 2013?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

You talk about these contingencies being set because of the experience of the Treasury over the last 80 years and feeling that that is a bit strong. The problem is it has been the experience of every other Olympic Games. When we first predicted, just over two years ago, that the budget, as it would finally be, would be around £10 billion, everybody said that was a ridiculous figure for us to state. The problem is, if you look at Athens, at Sydney and the rest, surely that is a reasonable contingency for the Government to put in?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

So is it fair to say then, Mr Mayor, that this budget is a budget to get past the next Mayoral election, then we will revisit again after that?

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

I welcome the headline figures from the Government as well. As Val [Shawcross] suggested I think they are probably going to be the upper limits to the whole expenditure on the Olympics. I do share your concerns on the contingency sums though, because I think they are overly generous, and perversely may give an incentive to contractors who went into those contracts to send a whole army of lawyers looking into those claims that they would want to make. I would much have preferred bonus payments on the basis of meeting milestones early.Can I come back to the police costs...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

But they promised I think almost 100,000. I mean how on earth could they think of that?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

You said earlier that you were an illusionist when it comes to this issue. Perhaps you are rather like Gordon Brown in terms of agreeing not to increase one tax, but finding many other taxes to increase to cover that, because you talk very openly and blandly about some increase in revenue streams to be able to meet the £300 million. What kind of revenue streams are they, do you think? I know you do not want to speculate on what might be in the Lyons Report, but what additional taxes are you looking for to be able to fulfil...

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

I think you can paraphrase it that you do not know but you are going to try?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

The Assembly was assured that all of the uplift in the value of the land would go to our London Development Agency. So that is a loss of money for Londoners. Also, when Mr Higgins came in front of this Assembly, he said that the land - in response to a question I asked him - was not a highly contaminated site. Now you and the Government are saying that there are cost overruns because of contamination. When are we going to get straightforward comments from you on this issue? It is not good enough for you to turn round...

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Finally, in terms of the money that the LDA has borrowed, my understanding is from what you said, it is £600 million. The previous answer you gave us was that it was £1 billion. Now that does not suggest that there is going to be any money left over, if the LDA has to be refunded with its money, from any profits from land sales that you have told us about today. That has got to be a cause for concern for all Londoners.