• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Can we look then at the reasons why you have increased the land take by, I think you said, 29%. Why has the land take gone up by such a dramatic amount?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Perhaps I will put the question this way: would it be unfair to say that the LDA has done a reasonable job in difficult circumstances?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Can I just take you back to what the Mayor said at the last Mayor's Question Time, where he said, on the record, that this was precisely the reason why the land increase was taking place? Can I just tell you what he said? `We have increased the size of the land we are acquiring by about 25%' ' you are now saying it is 29%, so clearly the briefing to the Mayor was not quite correct - and basically he has done it so that the land could be sold later on at a greater profit.

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

One of the clear risks that Londoners will be concerned about is that in order to fund this bridging loan, that the Mayor has put on record, some more of that parkland may get destroyed in order to fund these additional costs. Are you saying that will not happen?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

That clearly contradicts with what the Mayor has had to say. The reality is that the costs are going up beyond those expected and the Mayor has quite openly said to us, on the record, that it is basically a seven-year bridging loan that we are having here and we are acquiring additional property in order to fund the increased costs. Is it not a fact here that you are becoming a property speculator in order to fund the Games?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Of course, we do not know.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

We will keep a log of the times you say it was not written down so you are not going to be able to get it under FOI. I may have used the term `excluded- inappropriately. I accept that there are parts of this organisation where the Director of Secretariat would not naturally be included. However, showing a practical attitude to it, would you recommend that I talk to your office about how we can actually work with them during this process instead of them spending five months and producing a huge file?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

There are indeed those protections under the Act. I thought you would say yes, I hoped you would say yes, and I believe the Commissioner for Transport would agree with all that. One of the questions that my group has asked ' and we are trying to be quite discriminating in asking questions ' is about the performance targets set for the Commissioner. The Commissioner himself on the Politics Show a couple of weeks ago said that the performance matrix would be published, I think he said within the 20-day period. In fact, it has been refused on the basis...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

No, you said if we had the money, you would make the information available.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

On the basis that I do not think every document usually does come into the public domain, I know that from the experience of officers in Kensington and Chelsea trying to drag information out, would you agree that all documentation, whether or not TfL has put it in the public domain, would be made available?