• Question by: David Lammy
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

What attempts are you making to encourage civic participation amongst London's youth and young people, particularly black people in London? I say this in view of turnouts in recent elections, including the Greater London Assembly elections.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

Going back to the consultation exercise, again. During the election and straight afterwards we had all sorts of documents and advice and programs and manifestos from a whole range of business organisations, pressure groups and voluntary bodies, these perspectives for the new Greater London Authority, programmes for the Mayor and all that sort of stuff. Are we actually going to make sure during the consultation exercise that we are not just asking people to start again with a blank sheet of paper and submit new ideas but that we actually systematically analyse a lot of this good policy advice that...

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

You have on a number of occasions mentioned John McDonnell in his role in consultation and I assume that is related to drawing up the prospectus for London which is forecast in September/October time. Are you going for a prospectus for London because you recognise that your manifesto was quickly thrown together and that you are trying to dump it, and if that prospectus conflicts with your manifesto, should we say with congestion charges, which is going to take precedence?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

There is a deal of optimism in that one but it seems to us that I don't think you have touched upon the point that in reality are we seeing an expenditure of public money to create for the Mayor an alternative power base so he gets around the fact that he has now power base within the Assembly itself and I would be concerned, not that you should have advice from wherever is appropriate, that is obviously right, but I would be concerned about anything which undermines the constitutional role of this Assembly, as being the issue where London...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

It's a classic Livingstonian answer that one, if I may say. Dare I say, it does not really touch upon the concern of the question. Can I make the point, what troubles me, and I think other members of the Assembly, is this: firstly, that the type of Advisory Cabinet you have is certainly not one that had been envisaged in the scheme of the Act; secondly, and more significantly - and you will remember it is the point I made in my letter and the reason why the Conservative Group wouldn't be taking a place - you have described...

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

On this question of your relationship with this Assembly. You have got a Cabinet, it is not full of experts. It is full of people whose opinions you want to hear, which is fair enough. You have talked about the Civic Forum, you have now got the McDonnell exercise. Now I understand that this is what I hear is called "big tent politics" and you want to reach out but the law which sets up this Authority is very clear. This Assembly has a specific role, it is your principal scrutineer, it is the principal instrument of public accountability for...

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

I would very much just like to seek clarification on something you said earlier about advisers being on a 4 year fixed term. Now I appreciate that we are all here on a 4 year fixed term but can I clarify is that absolutely the case? If we had reason to dismiss them, we would be obliged to pay them for a 4 year contract.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

Following on from that, my concern was not that you shall be constrained in what you do but there should be total identifiability so that we can decide ultimately is there proper value for money, and you are happy to support that.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

I agree with you about the deficiencies of the Act and I think a lot of members would, from all sides of the spectrum. It is a woefully drafted Act and doesn't say much to the people responsible for putting it through. But I am also going to say that when the papers went out for the first Advisory Cabinet Meeting, there was reference to members of the Cabinet being given full support for their roles. Is that, in other words, what you have told us now as you envisage is that full support, as in the answer to Trevor...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 29 June 2000

This touches upon the point that the Chair was making. What I am interested to know is this: you have got a Cabinet which at the moment is at 23 members and may get bigger and that is the same size as the Assembly itself. The Act rather specifically restricted the number of personal appointments that were open to the Mayor. All the other staff appointments are the responsibility of this body, the Assembly, on behalf of the Authority. There is inevitably a public cost implication in your having a Cabinet in this form, which is an unusual one and...