• 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.

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

The truth is you have misled Londoners by saying you are not going to pay any more and you are going to pay more.

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

But your case was that you are not going to pay anything at all, and yet I have come up with a point where you are going to be obliged to pay, and that is going to be a cost to Londoners. So, do not say you are not going to pay any more, because you have just said you are going to pay because LU has asked for extra work. They have done it in the refurbishment of the stations as well.

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

Also, Metronet is expecting more money. They have made it quite clear that extra work has been asked for by London Underground, to the tune of something like £750 million have they not?