• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

You have set an important precedent here and you should consider the implications when you do that. It is not nit picking.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

If the buses are being driven dangerously it's the person that is driving it and as the only member of staff on the bus, he would be responsible for it.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

I am interested just in pursuing the issue of safety because you have set a precedent here. What happens if a Tube driver decides, in a few months time, that he feels unsafe on the Tube because of PPP? Would you say to him, in that case, that he need not come to work? Or, for that matter, what if someone who works on the buses feels unsafe because 4% of buses are driven dangerously, according to your own figures: would it be all right for them not to work?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

That is half the answer, what about the other half?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Did you persuade them to put the safety of Londoners first or did they persuade you to put their interests first?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

What was discussed at that meeting?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

But, in terms of safety, you would accept that the body whose advice should be listened to and taken is the Health and Safety Executive rather than the RMT or, probably you would say, the management as well in terms of safety? As to risk, we are all obviously at greater risk if there is a fire fighters' strike. Any of us who get into a car will be at greater risk, should we have an accident, and we have to make individual judgements, as you suggest the drivers will do, about whether we are prepared to take those risks...

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

Chair, I think it would be useful if the Mayor would also condemn any possible intimidation.

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

The Chair of LFEPA has not answered the issue about intimidation and arrangements in place for those staff who wish to work normally and for those non-uniformed staff who wish to carry on with their duties.

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 20 November 2002

I wonder if the Chair of LFEPA could outline very briefly the liaison which LFEPA has had with Chief Executives of London boroughs and whether she is satisfied that there is proper and close co-operation between the Fire Authority and London's boroughs in this matter. I understand, particularly, that the Army services will not attend any lift breakdowns, which is presumably an issue for many of our London boroughs with their tower blocks. I wonder if she could also assure the Assembly that arrangements are in place to deal with any possible intimidation by members of the FBU of those...