• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Have you not compromised your ability to look at the scheme on its merits - that particular scheme - by your extraordinary statement endeavouring to browbeat Lambeth Council into giving permission? You used the word `we" where `we" can only mean me, myself and the developers, who are the applicants: "We will pursue them for every penny of the cost" of Lambeth exercising its proper planning authority?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Can I just be clear about this? I do not have a problem with you negotiating with developers but I think we have agreed in past discussions that it is important that such things are handled in a transparent fashion. Had you considered the revised scheme submitted by St. George's in relation to the Lambeth Tower at one of your formal planning meetings before making the comments that you did?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

You understand why we raise the issue because the transparency point on planning issues, I am sure you will appreciate, is perhaps more significant than anything else. Will you make sure that there is clear transparency in any meetings that you have in which there may be a planning issue?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Lambeth has statutory responsibilities to give the application proper consideration, which it is still doing. What I am raising with you " and you have avoided the question " is have you not compromised your proper statutory responsibilities to consider the scheme on its merits by making statements supporting the development and the developer's press office, as I understand it, being briefed to issue statements on their behalf? Have you not compromised your ability to do your job properly?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

With respect, I am tempted to come back. The Mayor knows that misrepresents the Assembly's position.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Do you now not regret that you did not accept the proposals of the Planning Advisory Committee, which said that you should open up these meetings to Assembly members? You have just misrepresented the case. What you offered was somebody from the Standards Committee, not a member of the Assembly, being present. We warned you at the time that this was going to cause you " because it is done for your protection not our protection " trouble and it has not come back to haunt you. Are you willing now to change your view on this?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

So the cash will be transferred?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

Can I ask for clarity then? Bob was asking about the carry over of funds after the first year. As I understand it, the same thing has happened with this year's event that the cash is still held by Smurfit, or whatever the company is now. Does that mean that you have already put in hand procedures for dealing with next year's event and have taken decisions?

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

But it is definitely going to happen?

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

Returning to the St Patrick's Day issue, do you anticipate any problems now that Smurfit no longer owns the Irish Post? Will the St Patrick's Day celebrations definitely go ahead?