Search questions

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Indeed. That is showing up in the home safety checks which I think have risen from around 9,000 a couple of years ago to approximately 20,000 in the year that has just ended and the target for the current year is approximately 30,000. Even if you add all that up, that is 40,000-50,000 home safety checks. One or two per cent of Londoners have had a home safety check. Should we not be looking for a real huge step forward in this area?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

I have to say that I am surprised to see this question here, and it can only have come here because the Chair of the Authority has chosen to brief her colleagues on this. This matter is being debated, I thought, through the Chair's Coordinating Group which is normally a confidential body while options are discussed. Will the Chair confirm that there is no dispute that there are clearly variable natures of work between night and day? The crucial point is to establish that on the night shift there is no question of people being paid to sleep on the...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

A small point, returning to this question of the utilities infrastructure and whether you are in this rich mix of cooks and broths and magic wands talking to the regulators, Ofcom, Ofgem and all the other `ofs', because in the old days the utilities, the phone, gas and electricity companies would have been able to put the infrastructure in ahead of demand. Now they are working on a private model they can only put the investment in if there is a sure payback, unless the regulators tell them they have to do that. So are the regulators part of this?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

I saw that the LDA was putting a grant into some electricity substation, I cannot remember the details, and I thought `why is the LDA paying for electricity infrastructure?'

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 March 2004

As long as the money is coming back, because they are going to make money using it.

• Reference: 2003/0322
• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 November 2003

Why has the Authority's sickness absence remained so stubbornly high, despite being highlighted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate over a year ago as one of the worst in the country? .

• Reference: 2003/0324
• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 November 2003

Can you clarify the latest position on London Resilience funding? Are you concerned at the speed and manner in which the government is handling this important issue? .

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 November 2003

I agree. Who pays?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 November 2003

What about the money?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 12 November 2003

That does because it was the £2 million against the £11 million, which is the crucial number. Then you say that there is absolutely no dispute between us about the importance of this work and I would indeed pay tribute to what our officers have been doing in terms of pushing it forwards and contributing to the national discussion. But the issue is money. Can I take you back to where we were at budget-making time, where the original figure being talked about was £15 million and it was later reduced to £11 million. Your position, the current Mayor's position...