• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 14 November 2007

I completely agree with you about the employment potential in this sector and the need to make that massive shift. Surely, if that is true, it needs to be given a much stronger focus in the Strategy rather than just be a little bit of an afterthought.

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

Is TfL really trying to deter anybody else from bidding? Obviously your intention is to take those contracts back in-house. In a sense it is like a re-nationalisation. You are going to take them back into public ownership. You are determined to do that. Initial soundings from the Arbiter would suggest that there is some value in those contracts and that other people might be prepared to bid for them. I think you seem to be quite determined to deter those people from bidding.

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

In the Contract Journal there was something that caught my eye on 26 September; a comment like this, 'TfL are determined to frighten off other bidders. You may get a couple of financial bidders but will they be able to attract any contractors to do the work with such a hostile client in the mix?', the hostile client being TfL.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

Before we get carried away in a love-in of support for this policy, we would have to be clear that it is not the role of government and public money to subsidise vibrant profitable and successful businesses. It is about supporting businesses which otherwise would be squeezed out of town centres and which provide valuable and important public services or provide opportunities for disadvantaged groups to get active in the economy. Certainly, speaking in my role with the LDA, I am sure you would support this; it is important to address those areas of under-provision without us getting carried away...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

I suppose I am thinking laterally, Chair, in terms of the value that would otherwise be available for community or other services.

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

We have been nagging about that for four years so I am really glad to hear you say you will. It is not only in shopping centres though; it is also in all new developments because there is no point in having 50% affordable housing if you do not have affordable shops. Would you perhaps consider targets for all the schemes that get referred to you so that you could help people?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

It is market. Whatever businesses are viable in particular locations are going to be viable and if you not have that then you are subsidising businesses which would not otherwise survive.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

You are planning on a 6% interest rate against that borrowing?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

What about the upgrade to Victoria Station? Is that going to be affected?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

What is the change in the law that you are looking for? I am going to see the Select Committee this afternoon so I may put your case for you.