• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

I strongly agree with Mr Fletcher's view that it is not appropriate and not our purpose to enquire into his personal life, but I can't understand either why he feels it necessary to be reticent about his political views when he is acting as the Mayor in the absence of the Mayor himself. Perhaps I can ask a question in a positive fashion. We don't want to be involved in some kind of McCarthyite enquiry about what your political connections are. With your links with Socialist Action, do you feel that the Mayor has benefited from having political advice from...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

Let me put it this way to you. You talked about other mayors elsewhere. Actually, any mayor I can think of - whether they be in Paris where they are drawn from the successful party, or indeed New York where you have either a Republican or a Democrat - they are able to draw on their own party resources and loyalties which are transparent to the people who are then electing the parties. I put it to you that one of the reasons why he couldn't use the services of his Deputy in his absence was precisely because it would...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

Why is it then that the Mayor does seem to have made it very clear that he'd actually rather like to go back inside the Labour Party? Clearly, he is finding it a strain to carry this entire burden without party machine support of any particular party.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

Can I stress, the difference is that when the Mayor makes a full delegation of his powers to you, in preference to an elected member of the Authority, he has put you into the situation where it is a legitimate question to ask where politically the person making those decisions is coming from.

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

A democratic line of accountability relies on the Mayor appointing somebody, and nobody else is democratically accountable in this organisation? Curious.

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

In the same way as when he is in the swimming pool in Millbank, the Mayor is the Executive Mayor of London. There is no difference. One of the most extraordinary things of this whole argument was when the Mayor was away and John Craig of the BBC was genuinely surprised to see a letter from the Mayor from Australia, as if he'd not known that there was such a thing as email, fax and mobile phone, let alone landline. It's bizarre. I don't know why you think somehow it's not possible to be in touch with somebody.

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

Don't you find that people out there find this a little bit odd, that the Mayor did not delegate his powers as he could do under the Act, and as it indicates under the Act, to the Deputy Mayor?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

But at those times, if you cannot get hold of the Mayor - let's say there was some crisis - you would have to act, and you would be able to act. Let's put it that way. You would be able to act with the full powers of the Mayor and you've been in that position, four times, in the last two years?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

Four times you have been in charge in place of the Mayor?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 12 June 2002

I am interested in when the Mayor is away. According to The Telegraph, Ken Livingstone is quoted as saying, "My delegation to Simon Fletcher is a routine process I"ve used a number of times'. Has this happened on a number of times that he's signed over his powers to you, not just when he went to Australia? And could you tell us how many times he's done that?