I think fair do's for all sides. I think I can do it this way. So far as congestion charging is concerned, I was interested in your reply referring, with apparent approbation, to the response of the two focus groups, particularly the observation that it was worthwhile - that, although this charge would not do much to reduce congestion, it would raise a lot of revenue for investment in London's transport infrastructure. I am concerned about how that sits with the evidence given to the transport scrutiny panel looking into congestion charging by Keith Gardner, and by Derek Turner - of whom you have also spoken with approbation - to the effect that the objective of the charge is not primarily to raise revenue but to reduce congestion. The two are contradictory.
Given the importance, not least from a legal point of view, of ensuring that this scheme is not sold to Londoners on a false prospectus, can you state unequivocally where you stand as to the principal objective of the congestion charge scheme - to reduce congestion or to raise revenue?