• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Here we go. As we have already pointed out, Cassandra was always right about most things but nobody believed her at the time.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

The Government's behaviour in this whole thing is quite disgraceful. They are sitting pretty; under the rules of the IOC they had to sign up to be the ultimate guarantor and they then say that they wish to discharge or they hope to discharge this in a sharing arrangement with the Mayor, whoever is the Mayor, and the Lottery but meanwhile they are pulling in millions of pounds from all Olympic activities. They are going to pull it in from VAT, from tax on the Lottery, from national insurance and income tax from extra people that are taken on by...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Can I just take you back to something you said to Dee Doocey (AM) about your leadership, if it is required at the time and there is an overspend and Londoners are required to fund that along with the Lottery. You are saying it would be at that point that you would robustly negotiate on behalf of Londoners but that should not be the case. Why is it then that it took Tessa Jowell (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) to admit to the Committee that there is to be absolutely no cap on what Londoners might have...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

I think it makes you look ridiculous as a negotiator and frankly, if that is the way we can expect to see you conduct negotiations for the next 10 years with all kinds of businesses, I think it is a very depressing pattern of behaviour. Do you not think you might learn something from this and do that kind of negotiating in private rather than blathering all over the place about crises and all sorts of things?

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Can I ask you specifically about the LDA land acquisition costs because the Financial Times ran an article on 2 November saying that their original costs, which were just under £0.5 billion, were now estimated to go to just over £1 billion, i.e. a 100% increase. Can you comment on that? Is that figure correct?

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Or any other of their costs that might overrun?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

As Tessa Jowell has said, there will be no cap on what Londoners might have to pay. She said she refused to put a cap on. Can I ask you about the other little crisis ' which is your word, not mine ' that you started talking about late last week to do with the potentially necessary compulsory purchase of some land around the Stratford City development. I seem to recall that you said last week that it would be a crisis if we had not issued a CPO, which would otherwise leave ourselves open to the biggest ransom note...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Okay, so are you willing to categorically state that the LDA's increased costs are not going to be funded by the London Council Taxpayers?

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

I certainly do not agree with that. The only bit I do agree with is that there have been decades of neglect. The Government is just not putting in anything like it ought to put in and the entire funding package is unbalanced and always has been from the beginning. It is not right that it should just be London taxpayers that are picking up the bill. However, can I move you on? Can I ask you if it is still your belief that the figures in the Budget are robust and indeed the contingency is adequate? I think you...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Okay, so basically you are still happy and still feel the figures are robust even though just one figure that was published in the newspapers, and heavens knows what other figures are in the closet, has gone up by 100% - from £0.5 billion to £1 billion and you still think things are okay?