Search questions

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

I might have to ask elsewhere. Let us get it in context. We now know that he had expressed concerns - I think was your phrase - that the project was not on track. This is not a rogue member of the Board, this is the person who is the Chair of the Authority expressing those concerns. What specifically were the concerns that he raised?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

That came from some other source that speculation did it?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

What was the line that was put out, can you remind me?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

When Mr Lemley left, as I recall, it was suggested that it was because of ill health. Is that correct?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

You do not know whether there was any provision that might give rise to discussion on that?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

I understand. Was there any payment made to Mr Lemley in relation to the termination of his position?

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

I think that you will have to appreciate our concern about the way the goalposts keep changing. You talked about the cost of the actual buildings being reasonably on track but of course there were no designs costed out, so that suggests to us that the designs are going to cost more than the original costings. There was no VAT, you have quite rightly pointed out. You also keep talking about a revised Masterplan. I think you will agree we can be forgiven for thinking that this is a very, very flexible costing system. Given that you have already told...