• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

I do not wish to use my colleague's time, but we will have a list of your priorities soon.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

This is your Government's Spending Review. It is nothing to do with privatisation. It is your Government's Spending Review that has given you the shortfall.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

How do you intend to bridge the gap between that which you regarded as essential and that lesser figure that you have received? How are you going to bridge the gap?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

Going back to this meeting next week " whatever its purpose. As far as TfL's budget is concerned, your Mayoral press release 269 on 20 July 2004 stated this: that the Mayor warned that the great majority of the extra funding announced in the transport spending review would be going to Network Rail. As a result TfL had not secured the extra revenue resources. That is a crisis, is it not? What are you going to do about it?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

It is a pittance is it not, that the advertising rate of £16,000 that you are securing on those last three issues from the Londoner. Is the problem not, as far as the GLA is concerned, that it is all about publicity and communication when you had 100 people involved in communication employed in City Hall and nothing about services, which in the previous question we were talking about cutting?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

Mr Mayor, total income from advertising in the Londoner during February and March was only £16,000. The following companies have recently advertised in the Londoner: McNicholas Construction, The Cooperative Bank, Tourism Ireland, Access Online and Western Union. All of them have recently sponsored GLA projects. As a result of this sponsorship, did any or all of these companies receive preferential rates for advertising?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

The rate that you pay on the advertising, TfL's rate essentially, is £30,000 per page, whereas the rate of £16,000 for acres of advertising is what you have given to the private companies. Surely, something is going very badly wrong in the way that you are running the Londoner.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

We all agree what it could do.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

I think it is too early to say what the effects are, other than that Athens has bust way over the budget limit it is supposed to fit within the European Union rules. If you look back at Sydney, we were all told how wonderful Sydney was, but two of the venues went bust a couple of months ago; another is a sort of disused, weed?infested swamp. There is another one that is about to go bust. None would be happier than ourselves, as an avowedly patriotic party, to support the Games, but true patriotism surely is to analyse what...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 15 September 2004

Mr Mayor, they do not agree with you. If you look at the GLA's own poll last year, 76% have said that they will not pay the amount that you and the LDA have said is necessary for them to pay over the six-year period from 2006 onwards. On that basis, London is not supportive. Yes, we all support the general idea that it would be a nice thing to have the Olympics, but you actually have to take that a bit further. You said that you listened and learned from the Olympics in Athens, but presumably you learnt that...