• 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.

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

This is down to government and incentives. At the moment you say about companies wanting to locate here but people like Kraft moved their European headquarters out of Britain to Switzerland, because of our developing problems over ever higher taxes.You say that in about 2009 your successor will make the case for monies on the £300 million, but that just cannot be guaranteed. The money has to come from somewhere.You must know what is going to happen.

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

How can you say it is nothing to do with the Olympics when there is a £300 million request for money that you have agreed on behalf of Londoners? Surely that is not a straightforward statement that you have made there?

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

There seems to be a slight disagreement between you and Tessa Jowell in the sense that she has given the House of Commons an assurance that the profit in land values will go to pay the lottery, fund the LDA for the money actually paid out, and that will be it. Any other money goes back to the Government for regeneration schemes.