• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

Personally, I want to use my Oyster Card to let me into this building. I often find myself using it on the pads here, so if it acted as a security pass here, it would make my life a lot easier! I think there is an interesting case study in Rotterdam and maybe that is worth sending to the working group you have established at TfL and to the Liberal Democrats. Maybe some other Assembly Members would want to get involved as well.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

I am very happy to enter into `nasty coalitions', as you put them, that achieve results for Londoners. This is certainly an idea that has merit, so I will certainly take up that offer which is why we have been doing the work. Are you prepared to work with the necessary commercial partners to make this possible? You will be aware that obviously with the Oyster, while it is, as it were, a brand of TfL, it is a commercial partnership that runs it, and that any scheme that had a wider applicability than the pure transport aspects would need...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

Have you seen sight of a plan I gave you last week which takes that concept broader and indeed links it with commitments that you have also given in relation to the Food Strategy to look at a rewards scheme there? Do you have an initial view on the ideas that I have been working up?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

OK. One more point, and that is Metronet employ about 6,000 people in their staff - both frontline and back office - most of whom would say that they were Londoners. The constant criticism of Metronet that emanates from you and some other people I would suggest is undermining the morale of the company and making matters worse. Their staff try extremely hard, and work extremely hard, to keep London Underground going. Yet they are criticised unmercifully and constantly. That is creating a real morale problem for Metronet.

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

Ultimately this matter is likely to be decided by the Arbiter, Chris Bolt, whose decision is going to be binding on both parties. Therefore, we are really arguing in a bit of a vacuum here because that is where it is going to end up, with the Arbiter. That is the first point I wish to make.

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

No one is saying where Metronet has made mistakes that they should not pay for it, but -and I am sure the Arbiter will judge - in many cases LU has asked for extra work, and therefore they will come down on a figure - which I am sure will be less than £750 million - but it will be substantial. Do you accept that?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

Obviously you try to reach an agreement before going to arbitration. That is standard practice. However, it looks as though no agreement is going to be reached here, so that is where it will go.

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

Metronet say there was an additional amount of work which was requested, to the tune of about £80 million. Also, the PPP Arbiter, Chris Bolt, did rule that in this particular case, Metronet did carry out the work in an efficient and economic manner and there is, therefore, a strong implication that Metronet should not have to pay for that additional work. It is not all about Metronet, it is about London Underground as well. LU will be culpable, will they not, for £80 million - maybe not £750 million - but there will be a sum to pay.

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

What about the Chancery Lane incident which led to London Underground having to ask for the overhaul of the Central Line fleet, which was completed successfully? Are you not going to pay anything towards that?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 23 May 2007

Many of the station refurbishments were where LU has increased the specification.