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

The commitment is a bit different. Moving on to the Mayor's approval form of 4 May 2004, you gave a contribution of £150,000 and that form was signed six days after the last Mayor's Question Time prior to the commencement of the election, which meant it would not be reported to the Assembly until after the election. Was that deliberate?

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Apart from what we have heard this morning, and leaving aside the mockery and the clear demonstration by some members positioned opposite me that they really cannot see London beyond the boundaries of their constituency, would you agree that one of the positive spin-offs of holding the ESF in London was that 150 delegates from about 20 countries, members of the European local government authorities, met in this chamber to discuss and share dialogue on their work across the same issues that were discussed in the ESF, the central issues about safety, living in a diverse community, and how we...

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

): Can you explain how £396,000 worth of travel is spun as being £40,000 in value? It is unacceptable, in my view, to have given free travel to everyone there. That is my opinion, but I am sure it is the opinion of others here. Can you explain describing it as £40,000 when it actually had a face value of £396,000?

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

Tomorrow, the Budget Committee will be looking in much more detail at some of the issues that have been raised in terms of the Mayoral approval forms and the value for money - it is a lot of money, and we want to look at what Londoners have got back. I want to focus on the dividing line in the decision-making process between the proper spending of public money to further the core aims of the GLA and the improper intervention in party political debate and the political process. Can I take you back to what you said in answer...

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 20 October 2004

Can we bring it back to the issue of the ESF?

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

No - I knew I would not get a slot if you were controlling the agenda. There were a lot of legitimate pressure groups covering a whole range of issues. Legitimate Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who have been campaigning for many years have very serious concerns that what was supposed to be a bottom-up event was subject to excessive interference from the Mayor's Office.

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

The report on financial implications in that Mayoral Approval Form says that if the Mayor is minded to provide funding support for a project, then he will need to be satisfied of, inter alia, evidence of significant financial support from other organisations. That same approval form flagged up the fact that, out of a budget of £1.2 million, only £50,000 was committed from other organisations, from Unison.

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

Your next Mayoral approval form, on 20 July when you signed off a further £330,000, refers to issues that you need to bear in mind, in particular the absence of significant financial support from other organisations. Why did you sign off a further £330,000 when there was still no evidence of significant financial support from other organisations?

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

Then why not report that and not only the £25,000 for feasibility to the Assembly in March? Why not report the full picture?

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

In January that same publication reports that the GLA is committed to giving £250,000, and in February that Alexandra Palace was already provisionally booked. Is that correct?