• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

I think the residents in my constituency of Bexley and Bromley will think that they have waited rather a long time for these things to be on their way. Because since they are wholly dependent upon the overground for their significant transport services, they are concerned that it took two and half years before the directions and guidance were issued, and that any significant proposals are going to be right the way through the first term of the Mayoralty. Can you understand from that there is a very strong perception that you have very little interest in the commuters coming...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

I have got the Act here.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

But what you are saying is through the non-exercise of those powers there have not been any extra trains, particularly for the long-haul journeys, or any extra stock for commuter London. Are you testing out how far your powers extend? For example, have you actually asked the SRA's opinion on whether an instruction of yours would have an adverse effect on London? Because if he agrees with you there is not a problem.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

You do have powers under the GLA Act to also issue instructions both on the services, and the state of the railways in London. How many instructions have you issued?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

No, my supplementary is going to be why had you not come to the Assembly with a package of measures for the overland as you did with the roads and buses and so forth to allow us to do that. So I welcome that. And provided we can have a genuine dialogue we can see if we can redress the balance for the overground users.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Can I invite you to reconsider withdrawing and re-stating the answer you gave to my colleague, Lynne Featherstone, that you would not issue an instruction under the Act because it might cost money. You have never been shy of spending money. You do not refuse to improve the buses because it will cost money. You do not refuse to improve the roads because it will cost money. Why should you discriminate against users of the overground? Why do you refuse to use your powers on the grounds that it will cost money to sort the problems out? Of course it...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

It is really a question -

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Well that is not quite what the advertising campaign said. However, when he came to see us your speed camera man also told us that he thought the decision to paint the speed cameras yellow and make them visible was, in his words, `pandering to the motoring lobbies'. Do you agree with that?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Then how do you explain that contradiction?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

The main thrust of that advertising campaign seemed to be to say, in fact it did say, that speed cameras are only placed in areas where there has been a history of accidents and casualties. Yet on 5 December, Jim Landles, who is `Mr Speed Cameras' at Transport for London, told us that in 15% of cases cameras could be put in where there has been no history of casualties. Were you not misleading the public with that advertising campaign?