Search questions

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

Mr Coleman, you touched on it just at the end of your answer to Tony Arbour's question about the bulk purchasing power. Can we be assured that the prices in the Look Book will be no more expensive because we don't have a brilliant track record of monopoly suppliers giving best value to purchasers? Can we ensure we fully utilise our joint purchasing power to ensure those prices are not going to be any higher than would be normally available on the commercial market?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

I want to ask you about the bunting as well. Originally that was the only thing that was being proposed by you that I received with unalloyed joy because I thought, 'Here we are, outer London is actually going to get something. We are actually going to be able to celebrate something'. Now I hear it is some vast advertising campaign for the sponsors of the Olympics.

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

Mr Coleman and Mr Fihosy, you have both touched on a number of programmes that will be happening next year. Clearly there is the Olympics itself on a number of sites in and around London. There is your own programme of welcoming people and programmes that you know of at your Live sites. There are events that local authorities are putting on. There are events which local authorities are facilitating and by that I think of Jamaica celebrating 50 years of independence, Trinidad and Tobago also wanting to celebrate 50 years of independence, Brazil wishing to celebrate the fact of...

• Question by: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

Could you tell me when residents living around Victoria Park will know the timings, access arrangements and indeed volume of the Live site there?

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

Could I take you back to the discussion about public services and the cost of laying on various extra public services. I accept the figures that we have been given about some of the host boroughs close to the Olympic Park - and obviously there are other colleagues that can talk about them - but there are several that do concern me. I gather that the original estimate put in by the boroughs was £63.5 million and that has been reduced by the GLA and the Government to £21 million, which is a pretty considerable reduction. Now, as I understand...

• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

Thank you, Neale, for your briefing today. Turning back to the line of inquiry that Len Duvall was talking about, the outer London boroughs and the £50,000, I will take a slightly contrary view from some earlier colleagues. Wouldn't the man or woman on the Lewisham, Croydon, Bromley omnibus feel that they have been let down a bit? Wouldn't they be disappointed with the fact that they are only getting £50,000, although the fact is they are contributing? Wouldn't they find it quite odd that all these other boroughs are whingeing that they are not getting enough money when they...

• Question by: Kit Malthouse
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

They start on 2 July to 24 August at Hyde Park.

• Question by: Victoria Borwick
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

If I could just continue on that Live sites point because, as you say, a number of issues have been raised by various residents across London. Could you just confirm, will all the Live sites be licensed?

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

Could I take up one point with you on the whole relative costs of salaries and so on? Mr Higgins, you, I think, serve with seven other directors on the ODA, receiving pretty substantial salaries. Indeed, I believe you, this last year, did forego half of your bonus until 2012. Would it be reasonable for you and your fellow directors to consider foregoing your complete bonus until you have finished the job, and then receive whatever you are entitled to, through the success you have achieved?

• Question by: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

You set the target for 7% of the workforce being previously unemployed. The data that you collected relied on a voluntary question of the staff being employed and only 25% of your workforce actually replied to that question. Are you absolutely convinced that you have hit that target of 7% and that you are claiming 10%? Are you convinced that those are accurate representations of how many people were previously unemployed?