Search questions

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 20 December 2012

With your indulgence, Chair, I wanted to cover two things briefly. The first I think is to Stephen Greenhalgh, which is that he is the lineal successor to [Lord] Toby Harris AM, Len Duvall AM [former Chairs of the MPA and then Kit Malthouse AM [former Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime]. They exercised their roles predominantly as chairs of the MPA with many members. I just wanted to, if you like, punch the bruise of Tony Arbour's question, which is that understanding and defining your role -- and you are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. However...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 08 March 2012

John Biggs (AM): Yes. If I can get away with that, I have four questions, but they should all be fairly short. The first is on early departures. Do you have a number of officers who have indicated that they want to go, but not until after the Olympics? Do you have the measure of that?

• Reference: 2003/0176
• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Are you ready to take over London Underground ? .

• Reference: 2003/0182
• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Is the Underground under or overstaffed? .

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I would like to ask the 1 million euro question: are you able to tell us today that the Tube will be materially and recognisably different and better in July 2004 than in July 2003?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Come 15 July, when the transfer will take place, will you be able to announce to Londoners I do not want you to pre empt that by announcing it today, but it would be nice if you would the tangible ways in which the Tube will be better in the coming year? An electoral timetable is obviously a good benchmark for this. They will be non cosmetic changes, not just changed uniforms; they will be material changes in the quality of services, the frequency of trains, and the levels of crowding and you will set targets for that? Is that...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Lying behind this question is the under?known fact if there is such a word as `under known" that TfL inherits something like 13,000 staff from the Underground. Only a minority will transfer under the PPP, so there is an awful lot of discretion there. Whatever the Underground"s other failings, surveys repeatedly indicated that the public strongly welcome the number of staff at stations, and indeed would like more. Are you able to give a commitment to Londoners from today's meeting that before there was any cutting of staff from stations you would very publicly and very openly discuss the reasons...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I will take that as a `no" then. I would like to give you another chance to answer the question more positively, which is to look at outer London stations. I appreciate this point has been touched on earlier, but one of the great public concerns about the national rail network in London is quite how many stations are not staffed at night or, in some cases, are not staffed ever. That leads to enormous insecurity and as a result people just do not use those lines. Can you give a guarantee to Londoners that at all times under your...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

You have obviously had limited time, but nevertheless you have spent intense effort getting yourself up to speed on this. The final question is about lessons from Chancery Lane, where the report we wrote in the Assembly which I think was generally well received and evidence from elsewhere suggests that although the total number of staff may be one issue, the skills and deployment of staff at particular times is another. Have you been looking at that; for example, whether there are enough competent engineering trained staff on the line at weekends in the event there is a problem?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I am simply wondering how Mr O'Toole would ensure that any surplus generated by developing Tube assets is not taken away from the Tube and reinvested in the rest of the transport network. Your opening comment was that you wanted to see such assets developed to improve the Tube, but there is always a risk that they will be taken away and spent on buses, for example. Is that an issue for you, or are you a corporate player who is happy to sacrifice the Tube for the greater good of London?