• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

You say they cannot be replaced but we are 10 years into their life at the moment but there is a scenario where it became a political imperative to replace the trains and then presumably it would be the taxpayer that would underwrite that replacement and Bombardier supplying the trains. There is a conflict of interest within all of this, is there not?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

The half a billion pounds that it would cost, do you think that very frightening figure would give anyone, Metronet for example, an incentive to delay replacement? That they might continue to recommend or be forced into doing modifications and God forbid another engine fell off because we have not really got to the bottom of what happened. If there was an accident this would be called for because they could not go on using trains where they have not been able to find the cause of the accident. There is a perverse incentive here to not come up with...

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Is there any way you can lobby against these costs for London?

• Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

What do we do when there is a war?

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

That does not leave much room for supplementaries, does it? Do you find it distasteful that this thing should be on the anniversary of 9/11?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Maybe people at the top end of the market come by other means but the DLR normally signposts these events. Are you going to use your power at TfL to instruct that this event be maintained in total obscurity and not be sign-posted? It could be that were you to allow the DLR to advertise this event, you could be viewed as condoning it. Were you to instruct that it not be advertised, you may be seen as taking a more principled position.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

I would like to explore that a little further because I have agreed to meet I think it is Londoners Against the Arms Fair in my constituency role because the arms fair will be held in my constituency at Excel. Events at Excel are normally reached by public transport using the DLR, which you control.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Since you would not let me come in on the question on crime and disorder, and the Anti-social Behaviour Bill in particular - and I think there is nothing more anti-social than an arms fair - can I say on behalf of my colleagues that we really welcome your attacks on the Liberal Democrat Party? It makes us feel even more important than we know we are so please continue. Can I also say that I am astonished that you, as Mayor, who say so often that you are concerned for community relations, should actually be supporting Part 4 of...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Given that kind offer that we should accompany you, would you agree - just a simple, practical suggestion, to publish in advance the dates when you intend to make borough visits. That would enable members not to have to put down questions of this nature to find out when you are visiting and in practice would allow not just people to ask to come but also to put suggestions and issues that you should be addressing.

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

I am delighted that Bob Neill is trying to get you to go to Bromley because you really kicked up a stink when I go to his constituency and I would really like to come with you. I have got two questions and we are only allowed to have the one so I will just put in it. Are you aware that David Dilner, who is the Borough Commander, was forced to correct untrue Conservative councillors in last week's Bromley News Shopper, which I read avidly of course. He was actually forced to correct these untruths because Bromley has got...