• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

It is also about the varying estimates for the financial benefits of the money you will raise from the Congestion Charge. In the mayoral answer you gave Andrew Pelling on 26 January 2005 you said £26 million. In an answer supplied to the Liberal Democrats by TfL Public Affairs on 10 February 2005 you were going to lose £4 million. In the consultation paper on the Mayor's budget, paragraph 2.8, the increase in net income is going to be £15 million. If TfL's credit rating depends on financial markets approving figures for the income stream, how are they going to...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

You are changing the goalposts again. What I am talking about is not the quantity of those amounts, but the fact that there is an inconsistency in your answers across those.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Another argument you made for the Charge and the bus fare rises was the standing with the credit rating agencies. Did you have actual evidence that TfL's credit rating would be threatened unless you raised that extra cash?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

You know, originally you said that 15% was the optimum reduction to make London work and that would benefit congestion or travel times across London and redress the £2 million a week that it was costing businesses then. For someone like myself who actually believes it is a mechanism about pricing demand and should only be brought into play to price that demand when demand is rising, I think we just have to disagree on that. Given that you are going to make this charge, together with bus fares and Congestion Charges put together, you might get about £185 million...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Do you not think that the lack of consistency in your figures will give rise to concern amongst credit rating agencies who do have a valid interest in your ability to get answers right?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Basically, you only really cared about the bid. It was not really about whether we get the Games or not, it was just about the bid to unlock regeneration funding and transport funding.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

You have fallen for the hype, then?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

It makes it quite clear that the Prime Minister would not wish to damage other public programmes by spending money from the Treasury on an overspend from the Olympics. At the time, there would be discussions on how the split would fall, but it is clear that the two sets of shoulders on which it would fall would be a combination of the Lottery and the London council tax payers. That is specifically mentioned in the memorandum.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

I can tell you what the exact wording is.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

The Government itself said about the Arup bid that it was unrealistic.