• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

I do not speak on behalf of the coalition or the groups that signed the letter in any way, but I think it was rather wider than two communist parties from Iraq and Iran, and you know that very well. I know that from my own conversations with them.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

In your view. Can I move on to what I think probably led to this question arising now, and that was the exchange of letters between you and the coalition. I cannot recall their exact title. They wrote to you on 9 September what I thought was a fairly brief and reasonable letter with the names of quite a number of wide-ranging organisations and faith groups, lesbian and gay groups and so on. Why did you take nearly seven weeks before you sent them what was, frankly, a rather offensive and rude reply? If we are in favour of a...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

I think you are being deliberately disingenuous. I hope I am not ruled out of order. You said you could have sold tickets, but the key point is that you did not sell tickets or indeed invite the public. We are talking about having a robust exchange of views in public debate, and that is not what happened. The issue we are talking about is a one-off, which was and has become even more high profile.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

Are you delegating? Is this going to be something with which you agree?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

I am trying to make the point that we had no particular problem with the invitation to or the visit of Dr al-Qaradawi; indeed, I remember saying in this Chamber that he was a respected Islamic scholar for many Muslims, and the sort of person we should be talking to, without indicating we agree with his views. Do you accept that it will be easier to explain and defend this invitation if it is actually part of a programme, or at least not out of the ordinary to have people here for debate and for a robust exchange of views...

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

I was not seeking a full list, just a few would be helpful.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

The difficulty we have is that in the run-up to the election you announced that Nicky (Gavron) would be your Deputy if you were both elected. Afterwards, you appointed her saying how pleased you would be to have a Labour Deputy Mayor for the full four-year term. That says to Londoners that you have a person at your right hand who you can rely on to do a range of things both specific and general. In relation to the specific, surely those should now be spelt out so that Londoners can see what tasks you have assigned to her and...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

Where I am coming from is where we left off last time, two years ago, as Simon (Fletcher) alluded to earlier. Our unanimous party view is that major decisions should be taken by elected politicians and that you should not be delegating major decisions to staff. You should only be delegating to staff the implementation of your major delegations. That was not the case before. Now you are saying that you are in permanent charge electronically wherever you are. I want to understand, and I think Londoners want to understand, how arrangements work when you are not in touch by...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

I am not saying you need to check, but we, your staff and Londoners need to know how that works because you are clearly holding yourself out.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 January 2005

No, the Act talks about a vacancy in the office.