Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 2

Category

Meeting type

Organisation

Question by

Status

Year

  • Finance and Co-odination (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Darren Johnson
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [13]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    I am interested in looking at ways in which my constituents can buy in to the Games. Many of them will probably not be able to go to the Games because they will not be able to afford it, or they will seem rather remote to them even though they might live next to the Olympics. Clearly the regeneration vision is part of that. My questions are about employment and contracts and how they can link into the prosperity of communities in London which are particularly disengaged. An attractive idea would be for the Olympics to have as part of...

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [14]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    But I see this as being possibly an integral and an attractive part of the bid.

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    So, if I get the terminology right, there has been indicative funding for various projects, which are now not getting indicative funding because it is going to the Olympics. That is how I understand it.

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    My apologies. Can you explain?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    Do you have a figure for the size of the adjustment?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    So 25% of your future funding, which would have gone to other communities, has been adjusted to the Olympics?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    Yes, and we accept that. In a sense I am being taken around the round-about here, am I not?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    We accept totally the case for the Lower Lea Valley and all the rest of it. All we are asking quite simply is what are these `adjustments `and `indicative funding" and all the other terminology and has anything actually been delayed or lost out because this has greater priority. That is all; it is quite simple; there is no need to hide it.

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [10]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    You referred to adjustment in terms of future projects. Does that mean future projects will be delayed?