• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

The reference to the GLC may be a more appropriate Freudian slip than usual in the context of this expenditure. We know that the first Mayor's approval form reported to the Assembly concerning any expenditure on this was on 31 March 2004 of £25,000 for a feasibility and logistical study. However, it is reported in The Weekly Worker on 23 October 2003 that you had been approached for financial support as long back as then and were very enthusiastic. Is that right?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

I certainly welcome your decision to help host the ESF, but is there a balance to be struck in helping pay to host something and controlling the agenda and how the event is organised?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

We note that in one of your speeches at this event, you gave a commitment that in 2008 London would be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution. Can you tell us more about your plans?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Do you not think it would have been more upfront to tell people about the level of commitments you were giving before they had a chance to vote?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

On the basis of that argument, you could say that things like fare evasion do not cause the running of additional trains. In actual fact, with 20,000 people given free travel, you could argue that the transport system would have actually achieved more in income, because those people would have had to have used it and would have paid. London therefore has effectively lost £100,000, £200,000, or £396,000.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

You are not saying that the commitment to support up to the tune of £250,000 would have been given without your knowledge, are you?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

You would know whether you were committed.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Forget about those way off the mark

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

I suspect it was done to give some commitment to the people of the Forum that it was likely to happen, but I am sure we would have told them that it would depend on my re-election for the whole project to be firmed up. Bear in mind that in the run-up to an election and you are trying to clear your desk before campaigning, there is a lot to rustle up at the last minute.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

From our point of view, it was a very welcome gathering; they were welcomed in London and it was a very interesting political debate. Some views we would agree with, and some views we would vehemently disagree with. The issue is whether or not this was GLA money subsidising an essentially political meeting, not a meeting that was helping the GLA to achieve something. I was trying to get to what advice you have, and on what basis do you make these decisions?