• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

: It seems to me, if I am allowed two bites, the first one is you are saying to Londoners, "Trust me. It is value for money, for you as Londoners, for me to keep you in the dark about the cancellation costs of this contract, because I need to prop up a capitalist company". Is that the case?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

I'd like to just draw your attention to an evasion exercise that was carried out by Transport for London, working with the DVLA, which was reported to your Street Management Sub-Committee this month, where they stated that, "Negotiations are underway in respect of developing a persistent evader and ringer"s database, and the London-wide vehicle removal capability to maximise the enforcement effort'. It seems a bit close to the congestion charge coming in, in less than three months' time for you still to be having negotiations underway in respect of doing those things.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Of course those costs won't be academic, if the charge goes wrong and we actually have to close it down. There there'll be a very real cost on Londoners. What I am concerned about this morning is the potential for the charge to turn into an evaders' charter, if we can't actually keep track of those people who don't register their vehicles in London. There are a lot of them. Are you satisfied that your technology and your scheme will be able to do that?

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

My concern was as to whether it extended beyond TfL.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

We may soon get to a point where this particular contract becomes academic, but TfL's approach to contract is something which will be an issue for ever, for as long as ever Transport for London. My concern is that the default mode is that these matters are in the public arena, except for instance when you are negotiating a contract, when clearly you have to be careful what you might be giving away. You have talked about information being shared within Transport for London. Has the contract been seen or has any of this information been passed to or discussed...

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

I can see your interest. One thing you can certainly do, and that is actually to go to Capita and ask them if they will waive the provisions of the contract. Having agreed it, the two parties can make changes. That's not legally impossible.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

My prime concern is not supporting Capita's share price, and that's not the reason why I'm asking the question.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Let me give you the opportunity to express your gut instinct to being in sympathy with the next area, which is that - again this was from Derek Turner - the issues are commercial. He says, "The Chief Executive of Capita has expressed his severe reservations to me. He"s indicating he doesn't want to disclose information. The commercial basis for the wind-up costs [this was in the context of our asking about termination payments to Capita should the scheme be pulled] is one of commercial confidentiality, because the implications to Capita would directly affect their share prices'. Is it in...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

: I see. So, you confirm it's going to be Martin Richards, are you? He's far too close to be independent.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Can I just say then, what we obviously did have from you is a lot of waffle last February, when you told me in some length that you were intending to appoint an independent assessor to actually judge the scheme so that it would be seen to be an independent decision. Here, you're saying that that was never the case, it was always going to be you. So, why did you waste all our time telling us about this wonderful independent assessor you were going to appoint?