• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

Are you happy to publish that information?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

I don't think that's a very straight answer. The question is about whether it is reasonable for Londoners to have the same transparency on the packages enjoyed by senior executives of Transport for London, as the shareholders do of the senior executives at Thames Water. I think that's the question, not whether the remuneration is too high. I don't have any problem at all with Bob Kiley being paid what he is paid, if he is perceived at the end of his job, to have delivered. Are you happy with the concept of transparency in publishing those figures? You said...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

This has hidden behind a cloak of confidentiality in the past.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

The reason that you give for paying Bob Kiley so much, and being an experienced transport professional, particularly in the field of running underground railways, demonstrates that we have not had terribly good value so far, because the one thing that Transport for London hasn't done so far is run underground railways. A place where he did, perhaps, provide some value for you was in his advice on settling the Tube dispute with RMT. What advice did he give you and how is he planning to work alongside Bob Crowe when the Mayor keeps undermining the management of London Underground?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

It's not about being unhappy; it's about transparency for Londoners and their money being paid for highly remunerated employees who are doing an excellent job, in many cases. I would like to ask about evaluating what the proper package for those employees is. A lot of companies - and I think it's a flawed process in the private sector - have a Remuneration Committee which evaluates the pay and, usually, it tends to be people who have probably met down at the golf club and agreed how much to pay each other. Do you not agree that for a public...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

Why did you have to lean on him and his American advisers, some time ago, when they were proposing to chop the cycling budget?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

What would you say to those criticisms about Bob Kiley that, whilst he might be the number one world expert in running underground rail systems, he has not necessarily shown the same level of interest and sympathy with the needs of pedestrians and cyclists?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

Why do you keep pretending that in New York, Bob had some sort of no-strike agreement with the unions? In fact, it was the product of no-strike laws which have existed there since 1967 that there weren't any strikes or industrial action. The last time there was a planned strike on the New York Subway, Rudi Giuliani threatened to arrest anyone who went on strike; that's the difference between New York and London, isn't it? If you disrupt public transport in New York, you get arrested; if you disrupt it in London, you get an Easter present from the Mayor.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 October 2002

There is a question which I think is worth asking today, which is about transparency in Transport for London. I anticipate a slippery reply but I may be happily surprised. Do you not agree that for the top tier of Transport for London, and for those who provide direct advice to the board of Transport of London, transparency is an essential part of democratic accountability, and it would make sense for the remuneration and the other benefits of those employees, to be published in the same way as the salaries of politicians and senior executives in the private sector are...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 27 February 2002

I think there is huge public support for all these schemes - you obviously know which one I am interested in - but the process with TfL seems quite opaque. Although it was supposed to be brought into the age of accountability and democracy by the creation of the GLA, it is difficult to discover what tests are being applied, what the timetable is for decisions and over how long a period you are talking about planning. Will you be making a clear announcement and giving all the background information on this? If so, when?