• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

In terms of this `cart before the horse" argument, are there not staff that have been applied to the implementation of the congestion charging project that could actually be alternatively moved towards the improved increased public transport capacity?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Ken, just going back to the congestion charging again, if a constituent from my borough is looking at this business plan, they might see that for next year you're talking about £94 million increased transport capacity projects, which would involve £76 million of expenditure on congestion charging and then the following year in 2003/04 the bulk of the increase transport capacity projects are actually about increasing public transport capacity - things like the LR extension and so forth. Do you not think there's an argument that says the implementation of the £76 million of congestion charging this next year is...

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Both are expensive; £1.1 million per bus route or the millions it's going to cost for the policing initiative, so you're saying really that Londoners should be paying for this through the council tax?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

What's the most important thing for the results of the survey? What it costs or some of the other fringe benefits?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Earlier you were discussing the 55 bus route. I've travelled on that and I see some of the advantages, but it is a very expensive way of speeding up buses and I would just like you to clarify two things. Firstly, what is your main ambition with the conductors on buses? Is it to speed buses up, or is it some hark back to the hay days of the 1950s, 1960s or 1980s, depending which decade you're choosing to highlight at any particular time? The Bratton Group report you use as a justification for this police traffic initiative, but it...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

I had certainly been briefed to the effect that you may have a problem in this area and I'm surprised that you haven't.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Are you saying now that this is a hell or high water initiative but you're not sure that you have the power to go ahead with it?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

The final question then is, I think you've made it clear that regardless of what precept the Assembly allows you to set, subject to its powers, you would protect this policing budget come what may, so that you would make savings in other areas. Have you therefore satisfied yourself that you actually have the legal powers to go ahead with the police initiative?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

Can I move on particularly to the transport policing initiative? Again there's a question about the coherence of your budget. As I understand it, if I'm travelling on a bus route in London, there are a series of types of people who will be helping to monitor my progress. There will be bus staff, bus inspectors, traffic wardens, and staff of TfL who will be carrying out other functions. There will be people maintaining camera monitor systems, which are designed to trap infringing motorists, and on top of that you have dreamed up this additional scheme. Can you explain to...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2002

I think before Londoner's fork out another £100 million they do need to be persuaded that you have sweated and worked those assets, as indeed Trevor has argued and as indeed have Conservative members. Can you give an instance this year where you have taken a hard headed appraisal of one of your investments and you have concluded that the best way of funding it is through borrowing, through private public partnership, through PFI of any shape or form?