Transport for London

Minutes of a meeting of the Board
held on Tuesday 30 July 2002, commencing at 10  a.m. 
in The Chamber, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA  

Present: 	Ken Livingstone (Chair)
Board Members:	David Begg
	Bob Crow
	Kirsten Hearn		
	Mike Hodgkinson
	Susan Kramer		
	Paul Moore
	Murziline Parchment
	David Quarmby 
	Tony West
	Dave Wetzel (Vice Chair)	
						
Special Advisors	Bryan Heiser
in attendance:	Lynn Sloman
	
Others 	Robert Kiley		
in attendance:	Ian Brown
	Valerie Chapman
	Stephen Critchley
	Peter Hendy			
	Derek Turner
	Jay Walder
	Jeroen Weimar
	Maggie Boepple
	Tom Cassels (Baker and McKenzie)
	Isabel Dedring
	Betty Morgan
	
Secretary:	Maureen Nolan

47/02	INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair welcomed Bob Crow (who had been appointed to the Board with effect from 1 June 2002) to his first Board meeting.  

48/02	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 

Apologies for absence had been received from Stephen Glaister, Noël Harwerth and Oli Jackson. 

49/02	DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

The Chair reminded Board Members of the requirement to declare any interests in matters under discussion.   No interests were declared.

50/02	MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June  2002 were agreed as a true record. 

51/02	MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising, not covered elsewhere.

52/02	COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

The Commissioner presented his report for July 2002 and updated the Board on the fact that, following advice from Counsel, TfL had withdrawn its application for Judicial Review in relation to PPP.  This was on 26 July 2002. It was noted that a private Board meeting would be held immediately following the public Board meeting at which PPP would be discussed. 

Tony West affirmed his support for the Commissioner in relation to the legal action on the PPP and considered that the outcome had been unhelpful to Londoners. The Chair noted the fact that the expected funding gap of £1.5 billion between the cost of the PPP contracts and the funding committed by Treasury would result in the potential prospect of an increase in fares, or in council tax. 

It was noted that the judgement on the Congestion Charging Judicial Review was expected on 31 July.  TfL anticipated a favourable outcome. 

Kirsten Hearn thanked Alice Maynard for her work on producing TfL’s Social Inclusion Action Plan, which provided a good basis for the work that Pip Hesketh would take forward. 

It was noted that a credit approval of £83m, to permit TfL to authorise signature of the London City Airport Extension contract this financial year, had been received from Government. Government has written to confirm they would provide additional grant of up to £103m in 2003/4 to recognise the balance of the contract not covered by the credit approval.  It was noted that grant in future years could be adjusted to compensate for this additional sum.

Some Board Members expressed concern at the lack of effective communication about the disruption to traffic due to the extensive roadworks currently being undertaken.  It was agreed that a meeting with key stakeholders would be arranged in the near future at which the Chair and Derek Turner would provide a detailed briefing. The suggestion was made that consideration be given to placing newspaper advertisements.

The Chair reminded Board Members that the immediate short term problem of traffic lights phasing to adjust the traffic flow into Trafalgar Square whilst work was in progress was expected to be completed by the end of 2002.   Major roadworks at Vauxhall Cross, Shoreditch and Tower Bridge should end by early 2003.   David Begg stated that he considered TfL’s primary aim should be to reduce carnage on the roads and TfL should be publicising the reasons behind any unpopular measures taken to effect this aim. Board Members suggested they should be provided with briefings from TfL to assist in handling questions from the media.

The suggestion was made that the workplan of the utility companies could be co-ordinated and it was agreed that TfL would organise a meeting with all major utilities to suggest this approach.  It was noted that TfL would have to ensure that the capacity to effect this was in place, should the suggestion be acted upon.  

The report was noted. 

53/02	TfL’s GROUP STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

Jay Walder introduced TfL’s draft Group Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2002, which had been discussed in detail at the Audit Committee and the Finance Committee on 11 July.  It was noted that the draft Statement of Accounts had been made available for inspection from 8 July 2002 for a period of three weeks.   Following the inspection period, any questions or objections to the accounts received by the auditors would be reported to the Finance Committee and the Board in September.   It was anticipated that the final Statement of Accounts would be submitted to the Board in September for approval. 

At the request of Susan Kramer, it was agreed that a TfL officer would be nominated to explain questions that it was anticipated might arise due to the legislative reporting requirements.     

The Board noted:
(i)	the  draft Statement of Accounts;
(ii)	that the Chief Finance Officer will make adjustments arising from the ongoing audit work, prior to submission of the final Statement of Accounts to the September meeting of the board for approval; and 
(iii)	that any material adjustments will be reported to the Finance Committee and the Board in September. 

54/02	TFL’S ANNUAL REPORT 2001/02  

(i)	Jay Walder introduced a paper outlining the approach to the Annual Report for 2001/02.  It was noted that the intention was to publish a low key report, similar to the previous Annual Report.  

David Quarmby requested that a section on safety management should be included in the Annual Report. David Begg requested that the opening remarks from the Chair should include a statement on pedestrian safety and this was agreed. 
Following discussion, the Board: 

(i)	agreed the proposed approach for the Annual Report;
(ii)	agreed to comment on a full version of the Annual Report, which would be circulated to Board Members; and
(iii)	delegated to the Director of Media and Public Affairs and the Managing Director, Finance and Planning the authority to finalise the Annual Report (in consultation with the Chair), having taken into consideration any comments received from Board Members.

55/02	DISPOSAL POLICY FOR SURPLUS TFL PROPERTIES

Jay Walder introduced a paper seeking approval for a disposal policy in respect of the TfL Group’s properties that were no longer needed for the discharge of its functions.  

It was noted that LT property was now handling properties for TfL and had recommended that TfL followed a revised process following Critchel Down rules as laid out in the Board paper. It was noted that the disposal of properties, especially Street Management properties, was assumed in the TfL Business Plan

Some Board Members agreed that the policy recommended in paragraph 3.4 of the Board Paper and the Critchel Down rules should be followed, but suggested that consideration could be given to the option of offering properties at below market value if the Secretary of State’s approval was obtained.  The Chair suggested that properties could be given to those on Council waiting lists on condition that the properties were improved.  However, it was noted that TfL did not have the power to dispose of properties at less than market value.   The specific provision allowing local authorities to dispose of land at less than market value with the Secretary of State’s consent did not apply to TfL.

Some Board Members considered that the ancillary aim of making housing available to local authorities or making affordable housing available should be pursued if that were TfL’s policy.

It was noted that many of the properties in question were in very poor condition.  It was anticipated that the bulk of the properties should be disposed of by the fiscal year 2005/6. It was agreed that more detailed information on the schedule of properties would be provided to the September Board meeting.

The Board noted the various aspects influencing a disposal policy for TfL properties which are no longer needed for the discharge of its functions.   The recommendation in paragraph 3.4 of  Agenda Item 7 was agreed.  The Managing Director, Finance & Planning undertook to provide clarification on options for working with housing associations in respect of the disposal of properties. 

56/02	SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT

David Quarmby introduced a report of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 July 2002, which focused on quarterly safety performance reports.  

The main points David Quarmby drew to the Board’s attention were: 

•	The issue of motorbike safety.  It was noted that the risks faced by motorbike uers were significantly higher than that of any other road or street user.  It was noted that an analysis of root causes was essential and to that end, Street Management were carrying out work that will produce a report for SHEC and the Board in September;
•	It was noted that driving standards had improved on buses and the issue of TfL’s rules regarding the use of mobile phones by bus drivers employed by the contractors had been discussed at the Committee meeting.   Peter Hendy reported that he had written to all Managing Directors of the bus companies to draw their attention to the issues of driving standards, including the use of mobile phones and TfL was requiring bus companies to deal with the matter seriously;
•	Jenny Jones, AM, made a welcome visit and the Committee had a useful discussion on the work of SHEC.  It was noted that Jenny Jones was concerned with vulnerable street users, including pedestrians and children, especially in deprived areas of London. 

Bob Crow noted that assaults on staff had increased at a dramatic rate and that the British Transport Police were not providing an adequate response. A meeting was requested with the BTP to discuss their responses to incidents and the issue of whether safety representatives within the unions had been consulted.  It was agreed that Bob Crow would receive a copy of the previous SHEC report to the Board which covered staff assaults.   It was noted that whilst SHEC provided an oversight and scrutiny on behalf of the Board of safety issues, it was a matter for line managers within the organisation to ensure that health and safety requirements were met and give attention to assaults.  It was also noted that although LUL was not yet part of TfL, they had attended SHEC meetings from the start and had been very open about safety reporting, including the issue of assaults. 

The Commissioner noted that TfL was examining the role of the British Transport Police (BTP) and its relationship with LUL leading up to the point of transfer.  Specialists in rapid transit policing will be deployed to assist with this process and Board Members would be consulted at this time.  It was anticipated that this would commence in the Autumn in consultation with the BTP Commander, and conclude by the end of 2002.  At or before the time of transfer, it was anticipated that a report on an alternative way forward would be made to the Board.    

Lynn Sloman asked for details of the pilot schemes which allow motorcyclists to use bus lanes and whether there were any plans to monitor these lanes to ensure this measure did not make them more dangerous. Derek Turner agreed to inform Board Members of the start date of the pilot scheme and noted that there would be regular monitoring of the  schemes, probably  on a monthly basis.   

The report was noted.
57/02	ITEM FOR ENDORSEMENT
  
On 11 June 2002, the Board delegated the power to make appointments of members and officers to the subordinate bodies to the Chair in consultation with the Commissioner, such appointments to be endorsed by the Board at the next meeting following the appointment.   Following discussions with the Chair and the Commissioner, Bob Crow was appointed to the Rail Transport Advisory Panel, with effect from 15  July 2002. 

The Board endorsed  the appointment.

58/02	ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business 

 There being no further business, the meeting closed at 11.10 a.m.   

_____________________________	_____________________
Chair		Date