• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

I want to know where the £45 million is coming from. Are you saying that the £45 million is part of David Higgins' £2.075 billion? That is the question.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

): I understand that; that is not the point. I am becoming concerned about the funding for the Paralympics because it seems to me there is an element of double counting. When David Higgins (Chief Executive, Olympic Delivery Agency) was here last week, he was very clear about what he thought his funding package was for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to build the Olympics. He talked about the £2.375 billion, less £300 million for elite sport. He did not mention anything else that he would lose from that budget, [such as] £45 million for Paralympics. Either, as I see...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

You clearly need to be held to account for this. Would you agree with me then, Mayor, that the right way of looking at this issue is that the Olympics are an opportunity for London to make a step change in which we facilitate access to sports for disabled people, and that the approach is one which, as people often say a social model which says that a disability is to a great extent created by the society that creates obstacles, than it is a disability held by the person who has that impediment?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

The question in my mind is that while Dee Doocey is, I think, somewhat premature in accusing you of betrayal before a single brick of an Olympic facility has actually been laid, would you agree with me that this is an important subject? I spent a bit of time in Barcelona the other week looking at their Olympic legacy work and the way in which they have integrated disabled sports into the Olympic legacy. The way in which the Olympic Institute, which is going to be part of the legacy of the Olympics, is built is pretty critical. Would you...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

That is not in doubt. It is the £45 million I want you to concentrate on, please.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

Is the real point not what we actually heard from Mr Higgins, who I may say gave an excellent response to our questions; I think we were all very impressed with him the other day when he came. It was not that he is going to be held to the £2.3-odd billion. I think Ms Doocey slightly misread him. What he said was that figure was now historic, and that actually he would not be prepared to put a figure on what he might be prepared to spend on the Olympics, and indeed was still at the stage of working...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

I think the point is, Mr Mayor, that we were told that this bid document was robust and absolutely to be trusted. Now it appears that the bid document has been consigned to the dustbin and we are starting all over again, including on funding for the Paralympics. In other words, we are back in the dark again.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

That is to the train operating companies, not me? I thought perhaps you were addressing me in your usual way.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

One of the reasons we did not vote for your budget was because you were not providing sufficient BTP Officers on overground rail, and I hoped you would be saying now that you had more time to study our proposals for an additional 272, and that next year you would be seeking in your budget proposals to further fund BTP Officers, assuming it is still BTP, on overground rail.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

Your budget and your statements at the time very specifically said 89 for overground rail. In fact, of those, 29 are not missing; they are now deployed on London Underground. Whilst additional officers on London Underground are always welcome, the specific commitment that you gav, and that we supported ' indeed we pressed for you to go for 272 ' was for overground rail. You seem therefore to be one-third short in meeting your budget commitment.