Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 1

Meeting type

Organisation

Question by 3

Status

Year

  • Terms of the termination of your engagement to which TfL have agreed. (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Brian Coleman
    • Meeting date: 18 January 2006
    Mr Kiley, in answer to my colleague, Bob Blackman, you mentioned that you would not disclose details that affected other personnel. Are there any other members of TfL staff ' either in the Commissioner's office or elsewhere ' who are leaving as a result of your departure? Have you negotiated any pay-offs for them?

  • Provisions of Consultancy (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 18 January 2006
    The reason that I am interested in that is, is there going to be anything in addition to the fee, which was upfront and we have seen that, up to 90 days, how that is calculated? You are keeping the occupancy of the premises in Belgravia; that is part of the negotiated deal, I take it. Will there be other matters? For example, the council tax on that property, insurance, pension contributions ' will that cover the lot?

  • Provisions of Consultancy (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 18 January 2006
    What is the essential difference between what service you are going to be providing as a consultant, and what the role of Peter Hendy is as the Transport Commissioner, and what the role of Redmond O'Neill is as the (GLA's) Executive Director of Public Affairs and Transport? Where is the line between them? Is there a line or is there not?

  • Reasons for your leaving TfL (Supplementary) [11]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 18 January 2006
    I understand what you have said, and I need not recap it. This is a challenging job but a lot has been done, but there is still more to do. There is much that you could be judged proud of and you are clearly anxious to be still in the policy and the strategic decisions, so to move to a consultant role was a slightly unnatural one for you. I assume that was your state of mind when you signed the new contract: that you were still up for it and ready to go.

  • Silverlink Metro Services (Supplementary) [11]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 06 April 2005
    Does Professor Glaister's comment accurately reflect the view of the TfL board as far as Congestion Charging is concerned in its purpose?

  • Appointment of Tfl Directors (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 06 April 2005
    Do I understand that when the Mayor told us that he had agreed with you that he would not appoint anybody to the board that you disapproved of, he was wrong?

  • Appointment of Tfl Directors (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 06 April 2005
    The Mayor told us that he had given you that assurance. Are you telling us that he has not given you such an assurance?

  • Appointment of Tfl Directors (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 06 April 2005
    Would you agree that for a chief executive to have a veto over, in effect, the non-executive directors of any organisation would be wholly unacceptable in terms of proper corporate governance?

  • Appointment of Tfl Directors (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 06 April 2005
    Therefore, the Mayor was wholly misleading us?

  • A406 Major scheme selection

    • Reference: 2005/0099-1
    • Question by: Brian Coleman
    • Meeting date: 06 April 2005
    Following the Spending Review 2004 announcement, were your views sought or given on which schemes should proceed within the available funding? Did you express a view that lower risk schemes such as the major A406 schemes in Barnet, which have cleared all planning and legal requirements, should be given priority over higher risk schemes which are still subject to consultation and public inquiry? If not, do you consider this would have been prudent advice?