• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

I am interested in that, then. You may have observed that, in the Evening Standard last night, the Deputy Prime Minister is quoted dealing with two of the specific point you raised there. One is the proposition that Mr Kiley says that, without full control of maintenance, he could not order the private sector to repair a broken rail at a specific time; and his response, "That's just not true. London Underground's operating side has total control over what it wants done. If the Infraco says it wants something done because it suits them but not the operator, they will...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

It follows from what you say that, by that final meeting, all those things had been withdrawn or vitiated.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 04 April 2001

Do we know who voided or vitiated those points? Was it done by Ministers or by their representatives; and were all these voided or vitiated prior to the letter before action which you told us you were sending, I think, about a week or so ago?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

I think many Londoners would be surprised to hear that actually the fire service doesn't have a statutory responsibility to deal with those things that you listed, whether it's a pussy cat up a tree or, in this case, a child that very nearly drowned. In fact it was thanks to another emergency service - the Air Ambulance - that the child was rescued. But I think people would expect their fire service to do that and maybe a better title would be the London Fire and Rescue Service, but I'm glad to know that you want to see change...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

Wouldn't it have been better if you had gone down to Havering and told them in the clear, concise way that you have explained the matter to us? If you had told the residents directly what the position was, do you not think they would have far more confidence in LFEPA rather than, as they believe, having their concerns ignored?

• Question by: Louise Bloom
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

Following up from several things that have been raised really and, as you may recall, smoke alarms are an issue very dear to my heart: One thing that concerns me around the education work is doing the follow-ups. I can't remember which council it is, but I recall that one of the councils in South Wales fitted smoke alarms in all their social housing, went back a year later and 80% of them didn't have the batteries in. Croydon are obviously to be commended for what they're doing but will that type of follow-up work be happening? The other thing...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

It does beg a supplementary, doesn't it? Can you describe one or two of the bear traps that he's pushed you into?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

I have two little tiny questions. I'll roll them together. The first is, following from Meg's point about the FBU, do you find that the Mayor of London is a help or a hindrance in your management of relations with the trade union, given the problems that perhaps there have been, particularly in relation to the rail unions? And the second part, while you're thinking of a good answer to that first part, is the relationship between fire vulnerability and poverty and whether you're working on any particular regeneration initiatives in London, where particularly vulnerable communities would benefit from the...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

As the chairman of a London-wide body, I'm sure you think it right that you should travel around London to listen to the concerns of local residents. I wonder if you can tell us why, when the residents of Havering invited you to visit the borough to listen to concerns about lack of fire cover in Hornchurch, you turned them down?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 10 October 2001

What about my point about the Fire Brigade Union and negotiations with them on these issues?