• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Forgive me for being parochial.

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

If you read the statement, there is no commitment. It says that they will be in a position to take a decision in the future, not taking a decision now. Given that under the Blair Government the average life expectancy of transport ministers is one year " there have been six in six years " the chances of Alistair Darling being in a position to take this forward are close to zero. Given that lack of commitment, will he agree to take steps to bring forward the hybrid bill and, for example, ask Simon Hughes to commence proceedings ahead of...

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Can I just come back to the question of financing? If we are talking about primary legislation as a possibility for tax increment financing, are bonds still on your menu as something to try to push the Treasury to thinking about?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Can you please justify to us that statement that there is a commitment to proceed with Crossrail when, if you actually read the Minister's statement, he said "If the project were to go ahead, there would need to be" Later on, he talks about "In order to give the project the best chance of success, I am assembling an expert team" as though this was some sort of Richard Branson around-the-world balloon race rather than the most significant transport infrastructure that this capital needs. He concludes his statement by saying "When the Department has carried out a review, we will...

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

One of the problems that we have had on the Tube over many years is that corners have been cut on major projects to achieve tight deadlines or to achieve tight cost figures. Can you given us an undertaking now that to achieve those targets that you have been talking about today, there will not be corners cut on Crossrail because it has to exist to serve Londoners for years after the Olympics have gone and the party is over?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

I think perhaps that you are right on that but perhaps that party is paying a pretty heavy political price for a lack of credibility on the Prime Minister's word at the moment. Can I raise one specific final point that affects my constituency in Bexley?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

Given that I for one agree with you - and I think everybody here pretty much agrees on that - you must be concerned that in paragraph 10 of his statement, the Secretary of State used the phrase "So if the project were to go ahead" What are you doing to pursue the Secretary of State to ensure that he firms up and says, "It is not `if" but `when""?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 July 2003

): In an endeavour to assure you that our side are very positive about Crossrail, I hope you will appreciate one of the grounds for concern that stems from the statement. It is, in fact, the specific language used by the Secretary of State set against the past history of it. I know that you want to get Crossrail forward as much as we do but you told the Assembly at the meeting on 21 May that on 13 May, the Secretary of State made the statement to the Commons saying "The Government continues to support the development of Crossrail...

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

I am precisely trying to talk up this project and we always know the Mayor is on dodgy ground when he resorts to personal abuse.

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

I absolutely accept the point that consultation has to take place. My reading of the statement is that there is no commitment there. This is not a decision in principle whilst they sort out the details; it is saying that they are deferring the decision until later in the process. Given the history, I really think that you should not be so laid back about this and, from our side, we would be arguing that you should be taking steps to move the thing forward rather than simply wait until the Government's rather lackadaisical time scale.