Search questions

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

In retrospect, do you regret perhaps not negotiating more robustly - I am choosing my words with care - with the IOC over some of its more elitist demands? For example, we spent vast amounts of money upgrading the transport system but it is insisting that nearly half the people have got the right to use the roads.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I am not arguing with the principle. I am just trying to understand how many of the 70,000 volunteer places will actually be available if the sponsors take up their allocation and do not decide to give them to the community. How many are going to be available for the community? Is it 60,000, is it 50,000 or is it 65,000?

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I will come on now to sponsorship. There have been reports in the press that sponsors are going to get an allocation of tickets, which is perfectly understandable. I suppose you share my view and hope that it will not be like Wembley, where so many of the tickets are sold to people who have no interest in football and have their back turned to the game. My main concern is it is also reported in the press that staff of sponsors are going to get the opportunity to have some of the volunteer places. First of all I want...

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

Am I right in saying that the target for the percentage of time spent on community fire safety at station level has risen from 6 per cent to 8 per cent? Looking at the actual performance last year, over a third of our stations exceeded 10 per cent and one of them, Sutton, according to the figures, spent 25 per cent of their time on community fire safety. Is not 8 per cent really too low as a target, therefore, and should we not be getting the average a lot higher?

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

If some can achieve above 20 per cent, can we not encourage the others too?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

The main thrust of the question is about the Government recognising the unique need to protect its capital city from terrorist and major incidence attacks. Is there any sign at all that there is any recognition?

• Question by: Geoff Pope
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

You wrote a very comprehensive letter to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and got a response from Mike Reid at the Fire and Resilience Policy Division. On two occasions in his letter he says these are `local operational matters'; the question of buying additional fire rescue units. So the Policy Division on Resilience calls this a `local operational matter'. Are we getting through to them at all?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 09 November 2005

Okay, if I can just take it in stages. In terms of the progress, and clearly there is time involved, but we are on course to get all 10 relocated by March 2006 as per the plan, I hope.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 09 November 2005

The related changes in the London Safety Plan around the location of the Command Support Unit and the Driver Training Centre ' are they also'

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 09 November 2005

Moving on indeed to the response times themselves, I think that we have new indicators here, particularly in relation to the second fire engine. Previously we were monitoring this in terms of the percentage of incidents at which attendance times met national standards of fire cover, where London was performing less well than some of the other Metropolitan Authorities. I think we have now got two new indicators and on the second fire engine point, the target is to respond within eight minutes on 75% of occasions. That is the key one, I think I am right in saying, on...