Well, what does Bob Kiley do?
As our readers or, at least, those of them who travel on London Transport with any regularity (that word does not apply to the way trains and buses run, by the way), recall, Bob Kiley, the Transport Commissar, imported by Hizonner the Mayor from New York, whose inhabitants were overjoyed to hand him over, was given a whopping salary rise just before Christmas.
His basic pay is now £318,000 with a possible annual bonus (for what, precisely?) of £285,000. And to anyone who wishes to remind me that high-powered managers and directors in the private sector get more than that, I can only say that in one of those positions Mr Kiley would long ago have been out on his ear.
So what does Mr Kiley do for all this money? The one thing he does not do is turn up to meetings of the London Assembly Budget Committee. The first get-together of the year, appropriately on January 6, when, according to tradition, the gift-bearing magi came, was there to discuss the Mayor’s 2005/06 Consultation Budget with the functional bodies: Transport for London (TfL), London Development Agency (LDA), London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed the proliferation of authorities and of initials. The work of the Greater London Authority (GLA) resembles an alphabet soup.
As we have already pointed out, the GLA committees, though they nominally oversee the spending of taxpayers’ money, do not actually have all that much power. They can express dissatisfaction and they can, if they so desire, cut back on the budget as a whole. They cannot, however, tell the functional bodies or, for that matter, Hizonner, how to spend or mis-spend the money they have allocated to themselves.
Still, they can quiz the functional bodies or their functional bosses, all of whom turned up for the meeting. Errrm, all but one. Bob Kiley, the Commissar for TfL (oh do keep up with those initials!) did not. Only one person came to represent that organization, Stephen Critchley, the Chief Finance Officer.
He, of course, found it impossible to answer any questions that had even a modicum of political content. Actually, he was not all that good even on the financial questions.
When asked by Peter Hulme-Cross, the UKIP Assembly Member who was representing the group on the Committee why TfL was planning to raise operating expenditure for London Buses by 10 per cent (£132 million) in 2005/06, Mr Critchley was at something of a loss.
Mr Hulme-Cross also asked him about a rather curious transaction, whereby TfL borrowed £200 million through the capital markets. They did not go through the Public Loans Work Board because they wanted a sustained AA Rating. Whether they got that or not, remains to be seen. They did, however, pay more money this way. The question is how much more. According to Jay Walder, Mr Kiley’s second in command, who was not at the meeting either, it was £270,000 per £100 million more (i.e. £540,000). According to Mr Critchley, it was £390,000 per £100 million (i.e. £780,000).
The reason for Mr Kiley’s non-attendance may be quite an obvious one. He was not going to be the one to answer awkward questions. Not nohow. Not even for the £600,000 or so a year that he receives.
His basic pay is now £318,000 with a possible annual bonus (for what, precisely?) of £285,000. And to anyone who wishes to remind me that high-powered managers and directors in the private sector get more than that, I can only say that in one of those positions Mr Kiley would long ago have been out on his ear.
So what does Mr Kiley do for all this money? The one thing he does not do is turn up to meetings of the London Assembly Budget Committee. The first get-together of the year, appropriately on January 6, when, according to tradition, the gift-bearing magi came, was there to discuss the Mayor’s 2005/06 Consultation Budget with the functional bodies: Transport for London (TfL), London Development Agency (LDA), London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed the proliferation of authorities and of initials. The work of the Greater London Authority (GLA) resembles an alphabet soup.
As we have already pointed out, the GLA committees, though they nominally oversee the spending of taxpayers’ money, do not actually have all that much power. They can express dissatisfaction and they can, if they so desire, cut back on the budget as a whole. They cannot, however, tell the functional bodies or, for that matter, Hizonner, how to spend or mis-spend the money they have allocated to themselves.
Still, they can quiz the functional bodies or their functional bosses, all of whom turned up for the meeting. Errrm, all but one. Bob Kiley, the Commissar for TfL (oh do keep up with those initials!) did not. Only one person came to represent that organization, Stephen Critchley, the Chief Finance Officer.
He, of course, found it impossible to answer any questions that had even a modicum of political content. Actually, he was not all that good even on the financial questions.
When asked by Peter Hulme-Cross, the UKIP Assembly Member who was representing the group on the Committee why TfL was planning to raise operating expenditure for London Buses by 10 per cent (£132 million) in 2005/06, Mr Critchley was at something of a loss.
Mr Hulme-Cross also asked him about a rather curious transaction, whereby TfL borrowed £200 million through the capital markets. They did not go through the Public Loans Work Board because they wanted a sustained AA Rating. Whether they got that or not, remains to be seen. They did, however, pay more money this way. The question is how much more. According to Jay Walder, Mr Kiley’s second in command, who was not at the meeting either, it was £270,000 per £100 million more (i.e. £540,000). According to Mr Critchley, it was £390,000 per £100 million (i.e. £780,000).
The reason for Mr Kiley’s non-attendance may be quite an obvious one. He was not going to be the one to answer awkward questions. Not nohow. Not even for the £600,000 or so a year that he receives.
posted by Helen at 3:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home