Search questions

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

Mr Higgins, you just mentioned the site. You said it was 'highly contaminated'. Those were your words. Now, in marked contrast to your brochure of photographs here, I have got some photographs which actually show the contractors at work. They are digging up, if that is the right phrase, a whole lot of dust which is blowing over the surrounding countryside and the surrounding residential areas. If that site is highly contaminated, don't you think that enormous efforts should be made to damp down the dust and make sure that the dust does not go onto surrounding areas?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

You knew about that. I mean, everybody knew about the land.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

My final point is this: the people who have been taken for a ride here are the public, aren't they? Part of the design of that bid document was for public consumption, to ensure that opinion polls did not race away against the idea of the Olympic Games in the first place as it might have made us an unpopular venue as far as the IOC was concerned. It was the public that was being lulled into a false sense of security about this when all along the professionals and those who are used to this kind of bidding knew...

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

Are you aware that there is a suspicion that there might be radioactive waste on the site? There were two instances I have come across. One was dumped in 1959 and another was dumped in 1953 and in both instances they say that the waste was possibly radioactive.

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I attended the meeting in Hackney Wick about a couple of weeks ago when people were actually complaining about the dust that was flying around, particularly over the Clays Lane Estate and in that general area. People actually said, 'Having inhaled this dust I felt a real sore throat and burning eyes and burning lips,' and people were coming up to me after the meeting saying, 'Can you do anything about this?' I felt that there was a real concern. Now I know that there has been quite a lot of contamination on that site. I have documents here which...

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

Alright, and your contractors, those people who are actually working on the site, driving these vehicles and what have you, are they properly protected, using properly protective clothing and all the rest?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I am sorry, but all that was known and we all knew about the fact that it was also about regeneration. What I am saying is I think the public will feel that they have been taken for a very large ride, particularly when people now say, 'Oh yeah, that was just to win the bid.' It just does not allow the public to feel very confident that they are being treated like grown ups, does it?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

Alright, are you aware that the River Lee has been tested for radioactivity and in fact I have a Capita Symonds document here which says, `That the levels were slightly higher than expected, not high enough to cause great concern,' and identifies, `Elevated levels of radioactivity above levels considered to be natural background level for the area'.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

This is a question to David Higgins. There was something you said earlier and I just want to go back to it very briefly. I recognise that you came to this after the initial stage, after we had won the bid but I find it vaguely depressing when you say, as you have done in the past, 'Oh yes, well, the plans for the Aquatics Centre - it was all a bit vague. That was in the bid document in order to help us win the bid.' Don't you think that it actually brings the whole process into disrepute, that...

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

You have said the project is on track. You have also said the costs are rising substantially. Those two statements do not seem to sit very happily together to me. How can you be on track if the costs are rising substantially? The point I would like to make to you is that Londoners are contributing £625 million to this project and we have been assured by the Mayor that that money will go into infrastructure which will be a positive thing that Londoners can see their money has paid for. Do you support the fact that Londoners should not...