Search questions

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Just as Bob said the absence of graffiti on the network would give vital reassurance to people in terms of safety, do you not agree that the presence of staff on the stations provides the same sort of vital reassurance to people on safety issues? It is not only going to be psychological; it is also going to be practical. There will be practical benefits of tackling graffiti, safety, crime issues, or whatever and you do need a visible presence there. CCTV cameras in themselves will not be sufficient. You do need to maintain that staff presence.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

First of all, can I welcome your attention to the problems at the east end of the District Line which you have referred to twice this morning? What percentage of the staff that you are about to take on are on temporary contracts? How does that compare to the rest of TfL?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Will the agreement specifically prevent industrial action on the Underground, or do you feel that like in the USA legislation is required to do that job properly?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

When you talk about breaking through the culture of distrust bearing in mind the last Tube strike was only actively supported by 17% of the staff are you actually saying you are planning to go past the unions and communicate with the staff directly, rather than just talking to a few militants who might not represent everyone who wants to do a good job on the Tube?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I think you are optimistic, but I wish you well with this. If there is industrial action, will you be putting in place a contingency plan so that people still have options if they want to travel into London on strike days? This is something we have not had for the last couple of years, when the Mayor has been responsible for other parts of TfL. How are you going to make sure that the Mayor, because of his backing from the unions, does not end up effectively acting as your human resources (HR) director?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

And on contingency plans?

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Could I turn attention to the protection masters, a group of workers who do not work for LUL particularly but are subcontracted in a most peculiar way. They have no option but to work for one organisation, yet they do not know whether they will be working on any given day. Their terms and conditions seem pretty appalling, but the only thing they can do is work indirectly for you. Have you made it your business to check out the terms and conditions of subcontractors? How are you going to ensure that we have decent terms and conditions for all...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Just a technical supplementary: you said that the freehold remains with the public sector, with TfL. Can you summarise for us the extent of the leasing arrangements, in terms of the practical day to day ownership and control of the stations? I am interested in this `capturing the development gain" point.

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

And if the public are totally against it?

• 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?