Search questions

• Reference: 2011/0085-1
• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 07 September 2011

In light of recent events in London, how is the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority continuing to support the excellent LIFE scheme?

• Reference: 2010/0099-1
• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 08 September 2010

What is your vision for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA), with specific regard to 'Fire Futures' which was commissioned by the Minister?

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 08 September 2010

Chairman, I do not imagine anyone would pretend that you have had the best of relationships with the FBU but there are a number of people on LFEPA who have much closer links with the unions. Do you know of any attempts that they have made to defend the position that was unanimously voted on to union colleagues, or friends that they may have in the unions, to take some of the heat out of this particular issue and ensure that London is protected without a strike?

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 08 September 2010

Could I ask particularly about the efficiency in saving lives, which is something I welcome, as the Chairman said. What is the view of the two of you on what the Government should be doing about much more rigorous and widespread use of sprinklers, for example? The other thing I wanted to ask you about is timber framed buildings, which has been another bone of contention in the whole area in recent years. What are your views on that?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 14 March 2007

One final question. Studying your documents there do not seem to be a vast number of trips being planned, for example, to other Commonwealth countries, with which Britain already has very good relations but could be improved. Is there a particular reason why that is the case?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 14 March 2007

One of the considerations might be that we have had very clear ones to Cuba, Venezuela etc, which do not strike us as being those areas which would be immediately promoting London as such an important international city. Clearly, that is a priority. Why?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 14 March 2007

It is just that you are making comments to us like, `It is good to go to New York because tourists spend a huge amount of money in London'. The implication is if the Mayor did not go to New York the tourists would not come to London. What actual value is that adding?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 14 March 2007

You could not have given those assurances on the phone?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 14 March 2007

I think it would be quite helpful if you could say the criteria that he used for the trips that are accepted and those that are rejected, in terms of the planning side. Obviously at the moment we have understood from your answer to Mr Biggs' questions that you do not accept all the invitations, and presumably you are not proactive, but what are the criteria you use to decide?

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 14 March 2007

I accept what you have said about the Mayor who clearly takes his responsibilities to running this capital city seriously, but what about all his staff? I have looked at this document [refers to schedule of foreign trips undertaken by staff in the Mayor's Office]. I brought the smaller version. There is still a bigger version. I am really quite concerned how you are all going to offset all this travelling that you have been doing. Not only singly but mostly you go fourhanded to some very nice enticing places, and really I do not see the point of this...