• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

So they're temporary?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

But that is its limit?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

Have you made that decision now or are you going to wait to see if that level of evasion decreases before you decide to take the extra staff on. It does seem to me that relying on fining people into the future is a rather insecure foundation for you to be claiming extra costs.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

My final area, not to put a damper on this, is about the revenue and financial aspects of this. Of course, it's very easy to say that you're not interested in the revenue, it's basically about managing traffic. But we all know that you have severe budgetary problems within Transport for London and it would be very tempting for any Mayor to wish to extend this scheme, not least because of the revenue benefits. Again, I don't have a problem with that; I think you could sell it to Londoners and say it would raise revenue and it will help...

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

Here I am, you can see for yourself that I'm still smiling away. You can't, presumably, be seriously suggesting that the boroughs are now going to have to bear the impact of your congestion charge when you know very well that they are being starved of funds, partly on the basis of which you are very much in agreement with all of us, that too many funds have been taken out of London. Council tax is at an all time high and I can't believe that you really think, or you're suggesting, that it's now for the boroughs to adjust...

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

Where there are a few instances, and Kennington is one, where communities are divided in a way which does cause hardship, would you not consider just a small buffer zone?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

I will leave the more intense questioning on that to Sally. Two other issues. One is on Tube overcrowding. It is at fever pitch anyway; the predictions are dire for passenger growth. The PPP isn't going to address it and there is clearly - as 25% of people are no longer using their cars - there is a shift on to the Tube. I just wanted to know how we get the figures monitoring an increase in usage. How can we look at that?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

There are a few points I want to raise. Firstly, it went like a dream, better than anyone's expectations. Here the Liberal Democrats have supported it but it makes you nervous. I don't think we're home and dry yet; I think there will be issues about whether people start using their cars because of the emptiness of the streets but I think the Tories should be quiet on this one if they have any wisdom at all. There are some issues I do want to raise with you. One is that you're right to criticise the media on this -...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 26 February 2003

I take it from that then that you will actively co-operate with the Assembly and the boroughs in monitoring and looking at the areas beyond the political argy-bargy, the areas of genuine concern where this might be a problem. If I could focus on two other little areas: the first is one that will be raised by the civil liberties lobby and I think it probably does need to be discussed in a democratic forum. I am pretty authoritarian on this, I don't have any problem at all with reporting number plates, speeding cars, if people are ringing cars then...