• Question by: Lord Duvall of Woolwich in the Royal Borough of Greenwich OBE
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

Could I return to the safety issue? I think that everybody on this side agrees that there is no compromise on safety, but there seems to be a flaw in this legal case. It is not the Government who set safety issues but the Railway Inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive. There are lots of legal people here to advise, but I believe that any judge will say that it is for them to determine safety levels and the safety of PPP, not for the individual - yourself, Bob Kiley, or even Government.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

I agree with you, and that change can be made only if people are prepared to stand up and fight. Will you, for example, be writing to all Members of Parliament in London asking them to join you and perhaps other people in a campaign to get the Government to change their mind - whether it gets them into trouble with their Whips or not? Would you agree that that is an issue on which they have to be prepared to stand up and be counted?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

But is this not ultimately a very clear litmus test of the value of having a Mayor and a GLA at all? If you are unable to shift the Government's wholly untenable position on this, don't you think a lot of people will say, "What on earth was the point of having him to start with? If the Government will not allow the Mayor to take the ultimate decisions on transport policy, and if he is unable to use the political and moral clout that the Government said he would have to shift them, what value will there be in...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

To borrow someone's else's phrase, I think you are in danger of being all spend and no delivery. The problem for Londoners, looking at your balance sheet in 2004, is that they will say, "This man didn't oppose PPP when the Act was going through Parliament - he voted for it willingly. He knew it was going to happen, and he then spent four years obstructing a reasonable deal, with the result that nothing has been spent to improve the Underground. To add insult to injury, the only other solution he is proposing would require more taxes on Londoners rather...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

Will you perhaps finally consider, and report back to us, if this turns out to be the case in due course, how the inability to have any significant improvement on the Tube will impact on other aspects of your proposed transport policies in London? Would you agree that that clearly undermines the whole of the package of what you have been seeking to do?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

Given that Stephen Byers has been quoted in his short period in office as saying that the Tube is a "top priority", that is a pretty horrifying scenario; and I am grateful to you for spelling it out for us.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

The final point which concerns me is that, whichever way we go, we have the prospect of a court case which is very likely to go to appeal, one way or t'other, of the prospect of a complete collapse in negotiations with one of the preferred bidders and therefore of having to bring in a new bidder, and the likelihood that the contracts would have to be re-written. Isn't the reality, either way, that there is not a hope now of a penny piece of investment in the Tube this year?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

I do not criticise you for that; but I think that many of us would suggest that the fact that this offer - which was put in the Labour party's manifesto as "the best chance in a generation" to improve the Tube - is on the verge of collapse within eight days of the general election suggests that it was an offer that was making a mug of you and of Bob Kiley. Don't you think that has proved to be so now?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

Perhaps it will teach you not to go out supporting Labour candidates in the general election, I am tempted to say. [Laughter.]

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 20 June 2001

I am very interested in your last point - that Stephen Byers is not authorised to vary Government policy. So it is pretty clear that the Secretary of State for Transport etc does not have power in this. Does that mean that it is still back down to the Treasury again?