• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

When we saw Tim O'Toole last week " and he was quite impressive " he said that his priorities included a no-strike agreement and an emergency plan to enable Londoners to get in and out of town if the Tube was brought down by a strike. We have not heard any of these things before. Are they your priorities as well?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

): I am somewhat encouraged because on previous exchanges on this very subject you resistant to my suggestion. I am glad that you are now moving to the Liberal Democrats' position.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

): In conversation and also in the Chamber with Tim O'Toole, it is quite clear that while he wants to ensure that the PPP companies are delivering on what is contracted so they cannot muck around by saying it is your fault we changed the contract, it is clear that he is open to say the Liberal Democrats' suggestion about looking at economies within the consortia contract. Therefore, the things that matter to London, such as being squashed, overheating and being late, might actually be negotiated in from the cost-benefit savings that would be made from such things as line...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

My final question is about passenger advocacy. One of the issues that came out of our scrutiny was passengers' concern about how they were treated by London Underground management. We have the Transport Users Committee on which there is a variety of views, which I will not go into now. Do you think there is a need for some other passenger advocacy role within the Underground which is perhaps slightly little closer to the ground and less focused on the academic and a little bit more focused on the concerns of day-to-day travellers?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

That does not sound like a vote of confidence.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

Can I raise another question about the role of the trade unions in safety management of the Underground. It has been a festering issue and it came up again in our evidence on this scrutiny. Do you think the unions have an adequate role in safety management? Obviously, there are conflicting views as to whether the systems should be sufficient and it is just a failing of management quality; or whether there should be a further over?arching role to stop the services, for example, if there is any suspicion or concern about the way in which they are operating.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

So no reductions in staffing on the Underground however tempting that might be from other directions without there being a proper appraisal of the safety impact.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

Can I move on to the question of staffing on the Underground? It is one of our conclusions, which again I think has not been refuted and indeed is supported by the trade unions, that particularly at off?peak times such as weekends, there are not enough staff with the right range of skills working on the Underground to make it work effectively. Are you prepared to give a commitment to Londoners that there will be no reductions in staffing on the Underground without there being a full and public appraisal of the safety implications of that?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

As I am now Deputy Mayor, is the Camberwell Tube Station moving up Transport for London's agenda?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 18 June 2003

The good thing is that London Underground produced an environmental report. How soon can we expect the next one?