Chair, the Mayor has covered most of the points I wanted to cover. For the record, I am the Deputy Chairman of the London Development Agency. For the record also I think all of these projects were initiated before I became a Board Member of the London Development Agency, but I am very happy to stand behind every single one of them.
These are somewhat leading questions but would you agree with me - because it forms an important part of the record - that something approaching 500,000 people in London are employed in leisure, hospitality and cultural arts type businesses and that they have historically been under-funded and under-resourced and that we need to invest in those sectors if we are not to become overly reliant on financial and business services and if we are not going to develop areas of strength in important and under-represented areas of London's economy?
Would you agree with me also that the strength of a number of these projects is that they harness the strength and enterprise of BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) communities who have been under-represented and under-powered in London's economy and that is an important part of what we are doing?
More importantly then, given the focus of the scrutiny, would you agree with me also that one of the flaws in this scrutiny is that it tried to judge projects by criteria which were set after the projects had been initiated, so it is somewhat defective in its methodology?
Obviously it is not for you to tell us how to do our job, although I agree with you that I find it rather pathetic if Assembly Members are not clear what they are meant to be doing. They are £50,000 a year employees of the people of London. . I think that is an indictment of themselves rather than of the bodies they are meant to be investigating. Would you agree with me that good scrutiny does require a greater transparency in the relationship with the LDA, that we are always on a learning curve, we have opened up the LDA to a greater degree, there is a greater transparency, there is a greater understanding of what is going on and we would welcome constructive scrutiny which does not mean unquestioning, drooling scrutiny, but it does mean people not trying to ambush? To summarise what has happened with Deloitte, a bunch of Members have tried to wrap an ambush in a senior consultancy and pretend that that gave it the authority of fact when it does not have that authority.