• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I think the point is that TfL need to learn to adapt to be sensitive to the local issues and interests. Where there are residents living with noisy road works, it would be helpful if TfL warned people, gave them clear information, shut down in time for people to get a good night's sleep - because to do otherwise is a breach of their human rights - and actually intensified the work and spent more money getting it done with a heavier work force at the time and better equipment. There are other ways of accelerating road works over and...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

You tell me what TfL are interested in; can I just tell you that they're not interested, in many instances, in customer care. They're not interested in noise reduction for neighbours and they're certainly not interested in the comments of Assembly Members about their constituency. Just as an example, I had an instance where TfL were carrying out non-urgent road works in connection with the London Bus initiative on Kennington Park Lane until 2.00am, adjacent to residents who were pulling their hair out. There is a question as to why Lambeth's Environmental Health Department would have given them permission to...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I only have one other final area of questioning which is of some interest, which is about the relationship between integration in TfL and public safety, where time and time again Members of the Assembly have come across issues about safety, public safety, where Transport for London has been slow to respond and does not seem to be effectively dealing with very real concerns that are raised on the ground by people, or else it is so muddled. An example would be the A2 on New Cross where the engineers swamped in and closed it down before people had talked...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

You can understand why Londoners might see it as a rather unholy deal, in which the Tories have swallowed their principles and you have used London's taxpayers' money to buy them off?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Can you explain to Londoners then how the decision was made to do a deal with the Conservatives in Westminster, by which in return for them withdrawing their opportunity to appeal against the congestion charging decision of the court, you have decided not to seek something over £1 million of legal costs from Westminster? Can you explain that to Londoners and how it was made as a corporate decision, presumably involving you?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Can we maybe go back to the question? It happens I am with the taxi drivers on this issue, although not on every issue, and I think it is mistaken. It means that passengers cannot be picked up without incurring a penalty. A disabled passenger in a wheelchair cannot get into a cab at the Angel Islington without the driver running a risk of a £40 ticket. That, on the face of it, is pretty stupid. But the question about Derek; you say you have total confidence in his delivery and his management, but you are implying that key policy...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I think some of us might think that the criteria that you won't come clean on is actually about whether it's going to deliver you re-election or not. That would seem to be the only criteria whirling around in your mind. I don't understand what planning is going on, to actually provide Londoners, so that they can see for themselves what the basis is, on which you are going to pull this scheme after having spent so much of their money on it. What is the criteria for deciding that it hasn't worked? I asked you about this as far...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

There are so many challenges to even the idea of congestion charging that when you've had a few people working for two and a half years, costing millions of pounds, it might have been more mature to say, we need to suspend all or part of the scheme until we work out what to do. We're all holding our breath to an extent, some of us wanting it to succeed and some of us wanting it to fail. If it should fail, what's plan B?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Talking about integration within departments within TfL, what about your integration with TfL, subsequent to your remarks about scrapping the congestion charge? Because it seems deeply at odds with Derek Turner's request for six months. What is your worry, how serious is it and on what will it be based?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Peter Hendy does actually blame the street works of TfL for the increased level of delay to hit buses. If street works, which you make allowances for when you run buses, have caused an increase in bus delays of one-third, do you have any figures for the level of increase in delays it costs for other people using the roads, i.e. motorists and people trying to get vans and lorries around London?