• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

You referred to adjustment in terms of future projects. Does that mean future projects will be delayed?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

Excuse me, but most of the Board papers from the LDA are stamped `confidential" and that is half the problem. Other members around this table are nodding.

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

We accept totally the case for the Lower Lea Valley and all the rest of it. All we are asking quite simply is what are these `adjustments `and `indicative funding" and all the other terminology and has anything actually been delayed or lost out because this has greater priority. That is all; it is quite simple; there is no need to hide it.

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

Yes, and we accept that. In a sense I am being taken around the round-about here, am I not?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

So 25% of your future funding, which would have gone to other communities, has been adjusted to the Olympics?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

Do you have a figure for the size of the adjustment?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

My apologies. Can you explain?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

So, if I get the terminology right, there has been indicative funding for various projects, which are now not getting indicative funding because it is going to the Olympics. That is how I understand it.

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 15 October 2003

So could we be provided with a list of the broad and notional projects which encompass the 25% of LDA future possible spend which might have been included if the Olympics were not? Would that be possible?