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

The £500,000 million?

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

Since you have decided on balance that you should not resign having failed to resolve the Tube in 36 hours, it seems to me that we should try to take this matter forward in a more constructive fashion. I am reminded - and I think it has been reported in the press now - that the longstanding dispute between Canary Wharf Group and London Underground on the Jubilee Line extension has been resolved. As a consequence of that, the purchase and construction of new carriages for the Jubilee Line extension is being brought forward, which I think is very welcome...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

The report that London Underground issued contains a lot of good safety recommendations and it was quite scathing about these trains. For example, it states that the bolt design is barely adequate for the amount of load it is going to be carrying. On the motors, it states that the safety brackets were never adequate, either in concept or in production. That is quite damning criticism of these vehicles. What steps are you taking to make sure that these recommendations are implemented and what have you done since you took over London Underground last week to ensure that the lessons...

• 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.