• 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.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

Can I inform the Mayor that as a result of putting down this question, Visit London, which is not technically part of our family, has agreed to stop using plastic bags as well.

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

I am slightly concerned that TfL is not encouraging boroughs as much as it might because there are boroughs that want this and would like some help and are not really getting it, including Southwark. As part of our budget deal with you next year, there is going to be an item on TfL drawing up a feasibility study to confirm all the finding from the PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety) report, to confirm that you save lives, you can remove or not install road humps and that you make cycling and walking safer. We are going to...

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

Mr Mayor, I am delighted to hear that you accept that road humps in which TfL has pumped millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money over the years have not achieved the reduction that they should have done in deaths and injuries. As you will know, the London Borough of Barnet has one of the fastest falling death and injury rates and yet we have removed road humps. I am just amazed that there are still people out there who defend road humps because, as you say, not only do they increase emissions but they are actually dangerous because...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 October 2007

I totally agree with you on the point about back gardens; certainly we have done some work on that. As Ward Councillors - those of us who are - are always fighting off back garden proposals almost constantly. The other point is about access to public areas, which is a key objective in your Biodiversity Strategy, and you are still way off target in those areas. Are you having discussions with the boroughs that are most adversely affected by this to look at how you start to close the gap?