• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Will you be taking action to withdraw passes for unacceptable behaviour because, clearly, the scheme has not got off to such a good start?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Well you do not. If you multiply that £350 per person by the 385,000 young people you said would benefit, then the cost of the scheme actually comes out to £134 million, rather than the £60 million that you are claiming. We have just seen it with your Olympics questions. It depends on which side of the wall you stand. Your figures are different when you talk about the cost and about the benefit. Does that not damage your credibility?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Can I say I am sorry I was not here earlier, Mr Mayor. I was actually talking on the phone to some constituents from Bexley who are amazed that you found the time to visit the borough for, I think, the second time in three years. The Leader of the Council was delighted to be told that you were coming - to find out second hand, without the courtesy of an invitation from your office or TfL, or the courtesy being extended to the GLA Member or any of the Members of Parliament. So thank you for your little publicity...

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

£60 million. How does that square with your claim that each of the people travelling will save £350?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

I can tell you the situation you describe in Bexley is very far from unique and is actually experienced in quite a lot of other places around London. It is disturbing that you do not have an extra cost for this, because on top of the lost money to Transport for London, which looks different depending on which side of the wall you are standing, there is also got to be a cost of this scheme for trying to enforce the travel scheme has there not?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Would you accept that it was misleading to publish in the Londoner that the whole scheme was under threat from the Assembly when you know we have no powers to overthrow the scheme, and indeed you know the Liberal Democrats have, in principle, supported free travel for under 18s?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

They are not going to win in the foreseeable future.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

It sounds to me like you are estimating the average fare at one level from TfL's point of view, and at a different level from the travelling recipient's point of view.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

So actually your under 18s travel scheme is distracting resources away from those other priorities that you have just articulated now, and that you articulated a couple of years ago before you had created this new problem that needs to be solved?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

OK, so you decided to go the PCSO route. I am sure my two boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon welcome this additional 18. Given that they always patrol in pairs that means effectively 9 officers that will be available, because they do work together. You said earlier that they would be there for the school rush at 3 pm or 4 pm which, if you look at hot spotting and crime analysis, is the time when most muggings, extortions, whatever else - petty crime I think you called it earlier - happen against teenagers who are the most vulnerable victims...