• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

I just want to clarify. Earlier I spoke about the perception of this organisation among a number of organisations who have either tendered or would like to tender for contract work. If I had, and if I have in the future, any material factual information about improper processes, of course I would have and I would still in future refer that to the Monitoring Officer. I have never been privy to that information; I was referring to a perception. I want to make it clear that I have acted properly at all times.

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

No, I am talking about what led officers to come to the conclusion that they could go for a single?tender process. Let me just remind you that in terms of our report no?one minded you going for a single?tender procurement, and if you read the transcripts of the Committee scrutiny, that is not in question because you are entitled to do that. However, officers are not entitled to do that without the back?up and the proper paper work that justifies you doing that. Your own Mayoral Adviser, the Monitoring Officer and the Finance Officer, could not find that paperwork when...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

You have chosen to raise the St Patrick's Day thing. It helps me reinforce my point that this is about protecting you from yourself. Suppose a situation existed where a Mayor needed to give a contract to a newspaper whose political support he might be seeking to sway a significant section of the voting public in a forthcoming election. A prudent Mayor would want the decision making process to be absolutely copper?bottom, robust and above board. But instead, the second St Patrick's Day contract was given on your personal say?so. All we are asking for is the proper procedures that...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

): I hope you appreciate that what I am concerned about, and indeed other Members have said this, is the process rather than the merits ultimately. The other issue in the process that concerned me about risk was the fact that in relation to the first contract, as I recall the contracts were only actually signed a matter of two or three days before the event was due to take place. Therefore, a good deal of work had been done in anticipation of a contract. If anything had gone wrong this Authority could have potentially found itself at risk. How...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

The point I was making was how did you justify the way in which the handling of the surplus to be carried over was not, in effect, tied up with your fiduciary duty. I was making the point to you that the scrutiny established that there was no guarantee that if we had to go somewhere else as an organisation that that money would be carried over to the next year's event. In other words that was putting that money at risk. How do you square that risk with your fiduciary duty?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

The question was a very specific one about the handling of the contract which you signed off.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

You asserted too that you take careful account of your fiduciary responsibilities over public monies. Part of the contract involved the carry over of surpluses from the first event to the second. But when the scrutiny looked at it there was no clear mechanism to guarantee that those monies would be carried over in the event that someone considered some other tenderer was suitable on the second occasion. If you act in a fashion that effectively binds you in to a second term with the same contractor without any guarantee of recompense if anything goes wrong, how can you square...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

): I am troubled as to how well you read the report, because some of your attack upon the Assembly seems to centre upon the assertion, which to my mind is irrelevant for the purpose of probity issues, that nobody was suggesting an alternative. If you have read the report you will recall that Andrew Pelling specifically raised the issue as to why approaches were not made to a number of Irish?based organisations, including those in the Irish business community: the Irish Bank, the AIB, and other business institutions with strong links in the Irish community. So, upon reflection, would...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

If someone takes over from you at the next election, would you be happy for your opponents to have the same types of meetings in private to be able to override procurement procedures and so on? Or do you feel that if it was one of your opponents instead you would actually prefer to see some far more rigorous controls, more rigorous public accountability and much better openness?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

Well why not go back to the bad old days where every local authority in the country held their planning meetings in private without any public scrutiny and public access, if that is the best way of making planning decisions? Why should not every planning decision on every authority be in private?