You have not conducted a risk assessment. I have a table here, for example, indicating that when the ratio is one flight attendant for every 40 passengers, the safety score is 404. When there is one flight attendant for every 50 passengers, the score is 102. Obviously, that's not your proposal. I'm simply saying that there is a risk assessment procedure, it allows us to tell the population, amongst other things, that when there is one flight attendant for every 40 passengers, the safety score is 404 points. Have you conducted such an assessment on your proposal, in order for me to tell my fellow citizens that what the government is proposing represents between 102 and 404 safety points? Perhaps it's 300, but you've not done this assessment.
I'm not comfortable with this because I am not capable of telling my constituents that the government's proposal entails the same or a reasonable level of safety. I'm leery when I hear you speak about what goes on elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, all I can see is that for on a 1:50 ratio, the safety score is 102. That worries me.
You say you're proposing mitigation measures, which are probably a reasonable adjustment, but you have not conducted a risk assessment. I therefore cannot reassure my fellow citizens. Your own department requested this analysis, but you haven't done it. You tell me you have experts. As my colleague said, perhaps you're putting the cart before the horse. I know the department wants to deal with the issue, but does it have all the information it needs to make an informed decision? I'm not so sure of that.