• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

But if we can run the scheme more efficiently, cheaper and with a better quality of service and better integration, it would allow for better integration with the boroughs on traffic offences, with the police on bus lane enforcement and so on. Is there not a strong argument "

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Given Capita's record so far on congestion charging and given their record of incompetence in other areas, lots of the boroughs, such as Hackney, with huge disastrous implications and the Department of Education. Given your opposition to the privatisation of support for the public sector, is there not a strong case for when the current contract ends for bringing the service in-house?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I think we heard when we were at the Budget Committee that actually the reason why the quality controls were not in the original contract was because of timing. We actually got that from two of your TfL colleagues sitting in front of us. You said it would have taken too long to actually negotiate complex quality performance indicators and so therefore to meet your timetable they had to be left out. That is the truth of it, is it not?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Presumably that money would have gone into the pot if it were not being paid to Capita. £3.5 million for the IT contract is an addition.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

At a cost, again, on top of what was originally contracted with Capita. I am not criticising congestion charging; I am criticising its financial administration and management.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

Okay, but I am saying that contract management and contract negotiation is the name of the game and I do think you are taking seriously what actually was a huge gap in the contract. Anyone from any borough who does outsourcing knows that quality control has to be paid for and no one in this contract was paying for it.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

You are in a business now where there is going to be a lot of contracts about a lot of things. The point I am making is that quality control assurance is part of any contract and should not have been missed. That is the point and Sally said that the contract should have delivered it in the first place. It should have been part of what Capita was doing anyway and it was not. That is a serious thing to omit in a contract.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

But then you try and wrap it up by saying "Their quality control was so disgusting that I was on the point of sacking them because it was crap" but actually it was crap because it was not in the contract. It was not in the contract, which is why the quality control was failing and you were absolutely over a barrel in terms of Capita in that contract and you had no earthly hope of sacking them because of your omission with them in that contract. That is the point, Ken.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I think it is an absolutely wonderful scheme. That is not what we are discussing at the moment. We are discussing something that was actually left out of the contract and was not spotted, which you have now actually added in. There was an assumption that it was part of the contract, was there not? That is where it came from. Really the criticism is that you got it wrong.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 17 September 2003

I came to the Budget Committee and listened very closely to everything that you said and I do not think we got near the truth behind what happened with the Capita contract. Is it not the case actually that the quality control on customer service, which is very expensive and very time consuming to exercise, was assumed by TfL to be part of Capita's remit but actually was not in the contract? Is not that the truth of what happened and is that not why you had to add it in?