• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

I think many of us are interested that you clearly put the euro ahead of the interests of Londoners. The Chair: Angie - I want to keep us on track.

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

Yes, I think we need to get back to the point at issue, which is around the PPP and particularly some of the things Bob Kiley has been saying. He is a very highly paid official of this London government and Transport for London, yet he seems to be acting more like a politician. I wanted to hear your response, as the Chair of TfL and the politician in this case, to some points I want to put to you. In your view, is it true that, in a recent meeting between Parsons Brinckerhoff and LUL, when they were asked...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

We on this side have watched with interest the arguments toing and froing between former Socialist allies. Londoners watching all this would say, "A plague on both your houses." They just want it to get going; all these details are Byzantine so far as they are concerned. I feel that everybody's patience is running out while the two of you argue away. I want to return to the point made by Andrew Pelling. I have to say, Mr Livingstone, that a lot of people were incredibly disappointed that you put your old political allegiances ahead of championing Londoners' interests during...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

So that is all smoke and mirrors, and the assertion that bonds could not be backed by the fare stream is ridiculous. That leads me on to another area - safety, and the Bob Kiley issue. Given what has happened with the recently admitted dereliction by London Underground in the case which is awaiting sentence, if corporate manslaughter is brought in as a charge against companies, and should - God forbid - the PPP be imposed and an accident happen, have you had any advice from your legal department on whether, under company law, Bob Kiley or you yourself might...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

And half of that £2.6 billion is not going to be spent on improving the track, the signalling or the trains - it is going to improve stations and shops. If you had asked any of the people who have been stuck on hot trains in tunnels recently whether they wanted a Tube that worked or a shop, what do you think the answer would have been?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

That is the same as Transport for London, though. So you are just rubbishing board members generally.

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

Last night on television, Nick Raynsford suggested - no, I think he said - that the board of Transport for London had lost confidence in Bob Kiley. I would like to know whether that is actually so. Had they given a vote of no confidence? Were they going to do so? If they have lost confidence in Bob Kiley, on what basis - on the funding or on his method of negotiation with Government?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

So you are saying that, as and when the Underground transfers to your control, its meetings will be held in public.

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

Samantha Heath: Can you get one of your advisers to bring them down, and we will have them right now? John Biggs: Why is there a 2 o'clock embargo?

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 18 July 2001

Can you circulate it now?