• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

If it's going into buses, could you be persuaded to make sure that those buses are in outer London and providing orbital transport?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Given that this is going to cost £50 million, and I'm unsure whether to deduct that from £130 million or £80 million revenue on congestion charging because I'm unclear as to what that predicted actual income will be, do you have any plans for the remaining £80 million and could you be persuaded to spend that in outer London for a change?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I haven't attended a meeting with young people where free bus travel, and possibly free travel on the Tube for under-18s, hasn't proved popular. I think it's popular, because many young people, particularly in education, have very limited incomes. There is a lot of evidence that people are forced out of education by their low incomes. On the one hand, I'm delighted you might be copying Labour policy. The problem we have is that you have been all over the place on this. You started this year saying it was totally unaffordable, when you then attended a meeting with me...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I note that you are suggesting it is basically a conspiracy of the Evening Standard and London's mass of taxi drivers. But you are stating you have total confidence in Derek [Turner] and in his implementation of all of the policies to control traffic in London, is that clear?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

If I focus on one particular aspect of this; are you happy with the way in which policies and developments are being co-ordinated within TfL Street Management? It seems to have had a lot of flak and it is not just the Evening Standard.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

Do you accept that the Transport for London Board has overall responsibility for securing integration of Transport for London services?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I think the point is that TfL need to learn to adapt to be sensitive to the local issues and interests. Where there are residents living with noisy road works, it would be helpful if TfL warned people, gave them clear information, shut down in time for people to get a good night's sleep - because to do otherwise is a breach of their human rights - and actually intensified the work and spent more money getting it done with a heavier work force at the time and better equipment. There are other ways of accelerating road works over and...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

You tell me what TfL are interested in; can I just tell you that they're not interested, in many instances, in customer care. They're not interested in noise reduction for neighbours and they're certainly not interested in the comments of Assembly Members about their constituency. Just as an example, I had an instance where TfL were carrying out non-urgent road works in connection with the London Bus initiative on Kennington Park Lane until 2.00am, adjacent to residents who were pulling their hair out. There is a question as to why Lambeth's Environmental Health Department would have given them permission to...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

I only have one other final area of questioning which is of some interest, which is about the relationship between integration in TfL and public safety, where time and time again Members of the Assembly have come across issues about safety, public safety, where Transport for London has been slow to respond and does not seem to be effectively dealing with very real concerns that are raised on the ground by people, or else it is so muddled. An example would be the A2 on New Cross where the engineers swamped in and closed it down before people had talked...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 18 September 2002

You can understand why Londoners might see it as a rather unholy deal, in which the Tories have swallowed their principles and you have used London's taxpayers' money to buy them off?