• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Would you agree that for a chief executive to have a veto over, in effect, the non-executive directors of any organisation would be wholly unacceptable in terms of proper corporate governance?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

The Mayor told us that he had given you that assurance. Are you telling us that he has not given you such an assurance?

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Looking ahead, what changes could you envisage on the board as and when TfL takes on the responsibility for rail services, particularly over a geographic area beyond London?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Do I understand that when the Mayor told us that he had agreed with you that he would not appoint anybody to the board that you disapproved of, he was wrong?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I think where the argument in this question heads towards is a position that says that your board are a bunch of parrots, if you like, or `yes- people who take their allowances and play no active role. Can you tell us more about the grit that exists within the machine of TfL that means the board adds value to the way in which the organisation works?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I am interested in pursuing this a little more constructively, Chair, because clearly there is an election happening and people might be keen to cast aspersions, where in reality they are just misrepresenting the position. Is it not the reality that there has to be a creative relationship between you, as chief executive, the Mayor as chairman, and the board of TfL, which undoubtedly will require people to work confidentially to develop trust between themselves? I assume that is the relationship that exists.

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Mr Kiley, recently a constituent of mine had her car removed from her driveway in the middle of the night by bailiffs for non-payment of the Congestion Charge. Only through her own quick thinking, was she able to obtain a court injunction to stop the car being sold within two days. She then had to pay excessive fees, to both bailiff company and auctioneer, to recover her car. That her car was taken came as a surprise as, although TfL's bailiffs were able to locate her address to take the car, they were unable to send a penalty charge notice...

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

We were told first of all by the Mayor that this would prevent congestion, it would also improve air quality, but you do not care about that now and neither does the Mayor - it is only an income raiser.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I just want to support Elizabeth (Howlett) because I had not realised there were other cases of bailiffs arriving. I have just written to TfL about several where no previous notice has been received. TfL writes to these people and says that penalty notices, etc., were issued, but they were not. You have to take this really seriously because some people are not able to go to court; they are vulnerable and scared and may not have the money. This is terrifying people. They are individual cases, not hundreds of them, but I do want your double assurance that you...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I think it is so serious when bailiffs arrive that actually if you get letters from people saying, `But I never got the notices' and have business accounts departments that would normally handle them, you really have to do something about the system right now and say that any of these cases are to be an exception and should go to some sort of forum where they are looked at. To have bailiffs arrive is really unacceptable when the fault may be TfL's.