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

You made a point that Tube Lines managed to put together an asset register despite the fact that one of the things it inherited was the Northern Line which perhaps had the least amount of information on the condition of the assets. Perhaps Metronet has, perhaps it has not. Of course, this begs the question why an up-to-date asset register was not available from London Underground before the PPP took place. There was clearly a shocking case of bad management there. If you take these contracts back into London Underground where many of the people who were responsible for that...

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

If there is not an asset register that is accurate how can you reliably say the figures that you are quoting are correct and that you do not owe any money?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

We need to get to the bottom of this because you are saying it is black on one side and white on the other. The Arbiter is saying it is more subtle than that. In the case of Metronet there were some costs which are accruable to London Underground. That is the whole point of an independent arbiter, is it not; to come to an agreement between the parties? Ken Livingstone (Mayor): No. TfL has not wasted time going in and arguing about a claim from a firm that is now in administration. Our focus is to get the things...

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

Would you have the Secretary of State's support to un-designate the PPP contracts and take them back in-house?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

You totally reject out of hand the Arbiter's assessment? Just to remind people, he has spent a lot of time looking at the work that has been done and how well it has been done. In the past his findings have shown that some of the work was done efficiently and effectively and therefore costs accrue to London Underground. In his latest assessment the range of costs which would be put down to London Underground range from £370 million through to £1.07 billion. He says that is a range because he needs to do more work to get a more...

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

All law can be challenged in court. The law with respect to the public private partnership on the Tube upgrade says that these disputes will be decided upon through this independent arbitration process. You are saying that you are not going to pay anything if he rules that you should, which means you are not agreeing with the law and you are going to challenge it in the courts? Is that what you are saying?

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

Do you think that `dullardism' that you often refer to just applied to the Board and the senior management of London Underground or was it a problem with the culture of the organisation right down to what was happening at supervisory level? Has that culture been changed and improved or are we going to go back to the bad old ways?

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

Back in 2006 London Underground's annual PPP report placed a duty on Metronet to produce an up-to-date asset register. Has that been done?

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

If you are going to take these contracts on they will need to be undesignated as PPP contracts effectively. How will that work?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

My question on the priority order paper was asking about your reaction to the PPP Arbiter's initial analysis.