Search questions

• 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: 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: 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: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I do not think you were at the ODA at the time, but the last time the ODA representatives came to the Assembly's Environment Committee we were promised a sustainability plan across the whole of the Olympic family would be out soon. That is really what I want to hear about. When is that coming out, if ever? What are the main features?

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

Can I just go back to the water transport issue which, David, you raised? I am glad you mentioned Prescott Lock, which was welcomed certainly by many members of the London Waterways Commission. It is just that we would like to see more specific targets to drive that and I think that would give it a lot more focus. Also on water transport, there are parties like the Port of London Authority which are keen to look at passenger movements from the Olympic site to the O2 site; they do think that would encourage boat services north to south of...

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

My question is to David. You mentioned the extra money for regeneration. Does that include investment in the local environmental legacy in the lower Lea Valley, in the canals and rivers?

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

Does that include, specifically, investment in Prescott Lock or Prescott Channel?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

We were assured at the time by the Mayor and everybody else that that was a robust costing. So you can imagine how depressed we feel when it turns out not to have been anything of the sort.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 14 June 2006

Speaking for all my colleagues, we would like very much to welcome your recognition that target setting can end up being slightly a useless box ticking exercise. We appreciated hearing that from you. On the issue of skilled workforce, obviously we are all concerned to ensure that we get as much up-skilled training as possible to ensure the London workforce can take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the Olympics. One slight query here; is there not also a slight problem that, of course, the building of the Olympic site is also taking place alongside many other major building...