Tag Archives: peter hendy

Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by

Arrive City Hall to take part in ceremonious signing of Book of Condolences following last Thursday’s terrorist attack on London.

A rabbi comes up to me and started to harangue me suggesting that I (presumably as a Liberal Democrat) should go to Jenny Tonge and ask her to make the same statement she made about understanding suicide bombers now to our home-grown suicide bombers.

I understand the point he was making – but felt it totally inappropriate moment to raise it. I generally end up with both Israeli and Palestinian being cross with me whatever I say in such cases – as I passionately believe that only a solution which gives enough of what each side needs (a two-state or an equally shared one-state) will ever work and cannot bear the repeated calls on history which can stretch back centuries with the old rights and wrongs paraded endlessly – getting nowhere. Only moving forward together will ever create peace.

OK – rant over.

We go upstairs to the chamber. One by one various people come forward to sign – Bob Kiley (Commissioner of Transport), Tony McNulty (Minister), Trevor Phillips (Chair of the CRE), Peter Hendy (Director Surface Transport, TfL), Tim O’Toole (Managing Director of Surface Transport TfL) and on.

It was very moving – very silent – very appropriate.

When the main group had finished, everyone else lines up to sign. I don’t know what others wrote – I wrote something like ‘Love is stronger than hate. Love will triumph’.

Then off to Westminster for the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. I sit through the debate as having taken this bill through committee stage with my colleague from the Home Affairs team, Alistair Carmichael, I want to support him and also speak if I can get called.

Prior to the debate – there is a statement by the Prime Minister. I don’t agree with him on many issues – but he is head and shoulders above the others in Labour in performance terms. Maybe it goes with the territory. For sure – Gordon doesn’t have it in that same way. The statement updates us on the situation with regard to the attacks and progress made. There is this time more of a debate and Charles K does dare to raise the issue of Iraq – which all steered clear of last time which Charles Clarke made his emergency statement on the day of the attack.

At 4.30pm-ish we begin the debate on religious hatred. During the debate I pop out to the lobby where I have received a green card from – slipped into me in the chamber. A green card is filled in with the details of someone (a constituent usually) who has come to Central Lobby to lobby their MP. By the time I can get out – about 40 minutes after receiving the card – the person is nowhere to be found. However, I do bump into Pastor Nims (who leads the Peace Alliance) and he tells me that about 3-4,000 black religious leaders are outside Parliament to lobby against the Labour Government’s Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill.

Hurrah I say – about time everyone realised that the people that Labour set out to help by trying to stop incitement to hatred on religious grounds – will be exactly those who find they cannot practise their religion freely any longer.

Many of the arguments during the debate were repeats of, by now, well-rehearsed points. But I felt moved to intervene on Chris Bryant who was making a point (I think) about the difference between the belief and the believer – because Labour believe it is possible to hate a religion without hating the person who believes in that religion. Chris kindly lets me intervene to make the point that if you have love in your heart – then you may well be able to hate the belief not the believer – but if you have hatred in your heart – then the niceties of that distinction fly out the window. Basically – thugs and creeps likely to have religious hatred stirred up in them won’t give a toss about that very academic difference!

The debate is scheduled to finish at 10.00pm sharp – at which point Mr Speaker rises to his feet to call the vote. I am called finally at 9.58pm.

‘I’ll be brief, Mr Speaker’ makes the House laugh – sadly removing precious seconds. With little time – I make the point about the unintended consequences of this bill rebounding on those it sought to help – hence the presence of the thousands outside fearing loss of their freedom to practise their religion freely and simply state that legislation can’t stop hatred.

The LibDem amendment (supported by the Tories) fell – and so I voted against the bill – which I think will be a disaster.

Transport Question Time

Posted on by

Rush over to Centrepoint to be part of a ‘Question Time’ panel on transport and the balance of powers between Whitehall, the London Mayor and the boroughs.

Tony Travers and Peter Hendy and a councillor from Camden (Labour) were my co-panellists. I got into a right ding-dong with the Camden councillor as I was talking about how defensive the boroughs were about their parking fiefdoms. Cat amongst the pigeons!

Actually – it was an interesting debate – and continued with a lively discussion about consultation (do people listen to the results?) and the need for more powers for the London Assembly so it can exercise proper checks and balances on the Mayor.

Rush home to paperwork and emails and then dash out to distribute leaflets to deliverers ready for the general election being called. I think there would be a number of activists from all political parties who would throttle Tony B if he doesn’t call it next week!

Bob Kiley's pay

Posted on by

Rush outside after Transport Committee to do a TV snippet on Bob Kiley’s bonus and Oystercard.

Liberal Democrats finally got the figures and performance criteria of London’s traffic supremo – only thanks to our request under the Freedom of Information Act. Mind you, I think it should be a matter of public record – after all Londoners are all paying!

Mr Kiley gets a basic of £312,000 per annum. And over the last two years, in each year he got a bonus of £275,000 (96% of the full bonus) and this year is expected to get as much as £365,000 bonus.

The criteria for the pay are extremely vague, flabby and flawed. For a start – we have no idea what Mr Kiley is meant to do for his basic salary. I would have thought quite a lot for that amount. And yet in the performance criteria we find things he has to deliver like increased bus mileage and reduced congestion. ‘Scuse me – given the amount of extra buses we have all paid for over the last few years it would be a bit of a shock if bus mileage hadn’t increased. Ditto for reducing congestion – with the Congestion Charge it seems to me that was the main point.

Another strand of Bob’s bonus is helping to get borrowing from the government. This he has certainly delivered on and without Kiley I don’t think the government would have trusted Ken to borrow money. Budgeting is not his strong point…

However – Lib Dems will now pursue what we should have got for our money out of Mr Kiley’s basic salary and somewhat more specific targets for a bonus.

Call me old-fashioned – but I always thought a bonus was for doing extra well – not simply doing your job!

And of course the other biggy of the day was Oystercard packing up across London this morning. It wasn’t down for long – but it’s a good example of how things can go catastrophically wrong. (A corrupted disk Tim O’Toole had said in committee when I asked him to make a statement.)

Imagine if TfL had advanced the dream at this stage of everyone getting rid of their small change because you could buy bread and milk on Oystercard. Doris would have gone thirsty and hungry this morning.

After a Metropolitan Police Authority meeting, I rush to Transport for London to see Peter Hendy – supremo of all transport that runs on the surface of London.

This visit is about the Croydon Tram. There is a row between the guys running it and Transport for London. The people running the tram seem to believe that TfL may be trying to put them out of business by running competing bus routes. TfL think this is rubbish.

Peter (who is pretty robust) seems quite open to any suggestion from Croydon Tramlink about a way forward – but he certainly needs something from them on the table before any rescue plan could be brought forth.

And in the evening: with an election just around the corner – I do some telephoning!

Fare dodging

Posted on by

A day of interviewing applicants who have been shortlisted to become members of the London Transport Users Committee (LTUC) – who are accountable to the GLA. The quality of candidates is very high this time – and I am hopeful that when we make our decisions we will achieve a very capable body to represent London’s Transport Users.

Later in the day Peter Hendy (Director of Surface Transport at Transport for London) came with entourage to see me in my office to brief me fully on what TfL are doing about fare dodgers.

They had been a bit put out by my recent exposure of just how many folk are nipping on our buses free of charge and seemingly, with just 1 in 700 being caught, pretty much total impunity.

Post briefing, I have some confidence that TfL are making strenuous efforts to deter the dishonest from taking free rides and that they do actually pursue to prosecution those who evade fares – particularly when persistent offenders.

I am reassured that the health and safety issues raised with me by a serving revenue protection inspector are being properly dealt with – and actually – when I think about it, there is no-one more keenly aware of the dangers faced by bus drivers and inspectors than Peter Hendy – who was practically born and raised on a bus!

I still think they have a job on their hands with the bendy buses and I will continue to monitor their efforts, because I get very cross when Ken breaks his pledges and puts up fares above inflation and hits the honest citizen when apparently doing relatively little about the dishonest fare dodger.

TfL say they are willing to look at the Lib Dem suggestion that the penalty be raised to GBP20 and then doubled and doubled if not paid. So we will see what the dodging rate is in a year’s time … Meanwhile I will move my current attention to fare dodging to the tubes!

Then up to London’s Living room for drinks with the Chair of the Assembly (Brian – I like regalia – Coleman) and Assembly Members and guests. It is such a beautiful venue – situated on top of City Hall with an almost 360 degrees view of London. Tower Bridge, which stands next to our building, the Tower of London, the Glass Gherkin and the lights of London are just a fabulous setting for any function.

Bus awards

Posted on by

Pouring rain as I dash to the Hilton Hotel for the – yes wait for it – Bus Industry Awards. I get hundreds of invites to things as a GLA Member and particularly in my roles as Chair of Transport and Member of the Met Police Authrority.

I only accept the ones I ‘should’ be at to fulfil my roles. This is one such. I want to show support to the bus industry so I am there.

Transdev have invited me so I am on their table. Bill Morris is handing out the awards. An editor from Newsnight is the compare and each award is sponsored. I actually quite like these type of events and believe they are important for the industry concerned.

Richard Bowker of the former SRA (so to speak) was the key note speaker – but I thought he got it entirely wrong as he was comparing the industries and saying how great it was that access to the rail network had improved etc.

My view on those ‘improvements’ is that it means less services for the customer – easier profits for the operators. I very much hope the bus industry does not follow that route. Also a lot of talk about buses being regulated as per the London experience across the rest of the country. As one speaker pointed out – probably supremo Peter TfL Suface Transport Hendy – no use having regulation without the support of the partners in terms of congestion relief, enforcement and so on.

Lunch was good too!

Getting information from Transport for London

Posted on by

Having attended Conference Committee to iron out any wrinkles in the arrangements for the debate I will be chairing the next day (interesting notions like who’s summating the amendments and what is the time split between mover and summator.) It doesn’t get more riveting than this. Then off to the Purbeck Suite where I am speaking in the Transport for London (TfL) fringe on traffic in London. Peter Hendy and Bill Hamilton are there for TfL and Lord Bill Bradshaw is there to talk about the Traffic Bill. I am covering congestion charging.

TfL have laid on wine and food – so it’s a good bet that the meeting will be well attended. As I walk into the room, my researcher tips me off that TfL are very cross with me as they’ve seen the speech I gave to the Institute of Civil Engineers the previous Thursday night.

I had merely pointed out that getting information out of TfL was akin to getting blood out of a stone, that they were anal retentive and that I kept coming up against the rubberised walls of TfL Public Relations. Having grabbed a glass of wine – I was ready for the attack. I disarmed them by saying I had heard that they were on the warpath – but that I stood by what I had said.

I suggested to Peter and Bill that I give them some examples of requests for information (details and dates) – so that they can track what happens their end. We will see if this prompts the answers I have been waiting so long for.

Then we got on with the debate which went really well (probably the wine) and the room was packed and there were lots of questions and comments – which always makes for a lively time.

The answer to London's bus problems?

Posted on by

Very bizarre experience. I had a meeting arranged with a woman who had emailed me. She had discovered, she said, the solution to all the problems of London’s buses. She had been unable to get through to the Mayor or Peter Hendy (Director of Surface Transport, Transport for London) – so asked if I would see her and perhaps support her ideas.

I get a fair number of contacts from people who say they have a great transport idea which they can’t get people interested in. I try to see people whenever possible – but they usually give me an idea of their idea – so to speak. She wouldn’t. It was a secret.

She had said that she was wary of telling anyone her idea in case they ‘stole’ it and she wanted to own the commercial rights to her idea. In the end I agreed to a meeting and she came into City Hall to my office.

When we met, the first thing she said was that she had brought along a ‘non-disclosure agreement’ for me to sign. Whilst I am perfectly happy to keep a confidence if someone in that situation wants to be assured that I won’t pass on an idea – I certainly don’t believe in elected politicians signing anything that might prevent openness and accountability.

She said that she couldn’t tell me her idea without my signing this document. I said that I was sorry that it would seem, therefore, to be a wasted journey on her part. I had been quite clear about this before the meeting was arranged.

It was all quite pleasant and well-behaved – but certainly bizarre. I explained to her that she really did need to see Peter Hendy or Livingstone if she wanted to ‘sell’ her idea to them and wished her well.

Of course, I am still curious about what the idea is!

603 meeting

Posted on by

Stakeholders meeting for the 603 bus route. TfL are going to be reviewing the route’s success and viability and possible expansion to a full service in the summer. I have a slight dispute with them in that the email I had received from Peter Hendy (TfL supremo on this) implies that the review will be ongoing until August/September and on that basis I am encouraging people to send in views to Customer Services at TfL of which Peter has said they will take notice as it is a criteria for judging the success etc of the route. The officer at the meeting wants them in now. I manage to persuade him to give us an extra three weeks – not enough – but better than nothing.

There is still a great deal of disagreement about how TfL assess the viability of the route and expansion proposals which I won’t bore you with. They are wrong and the campaigners and me are right! We all know how much a full service is needed and what it will enable people to do without a car. They argue it’s no more or less needed than any other route that local people want anywhere in London. The campaign goes on!

Arrive late, leave early

Posted on by

We start Assembly Transport Committee at 9.30am to take an update from Peter Hendy on bendy buses and their recent tendency to burst into flame. The early start was at his request and, as chair, I try and accommodate peoples’ timetables. He is a busy man.

However, on arriving in Committee Room 5, I am given the news that he is going to be late. Something to do with a train problem (him on it and stuck). So I decide to start with the road hump report as soon as we are quorate. I ask officers to round up members and am told that Jenny Jones is eating her breakfast and a couple of others are on their way. Members are really poor at time keeping!

The hump report has received lots of publicity – very controversial. The car-lobby appear to think it is pro-hump and the pro-hump lobby appear to think it’s pro-car. So I think it is the perfectly balanced rational report with sensible recommendations – which it is.

The Tories decide not to sign up because it is pro-hump. Everyone else says they will support it.

Anyway, Jenny Jones had flounced in late into this debate and immediately had a go at me for starting the hump bit early. How dare I start without her when she wanted to be there for that debate in particular? Given I was told she was eating her breakfast outside when the meeting started, I thought her behaviour was appalling. Prima donna of the first order. If Peter Hendy was delayed, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to get the committee’s agreement to move on to the next item of business.

The rest of the committee got on with our work – people had their say and the committee then voted through the report. I hope this will be the first of an ongoing series of work on road safety.

There’s was more for the committee to discuss after the hump report, but Jenny Jones then left early!

Peter Hendy

Posted on by

Dinner with Peter Hendy, who is the Director of Surface Transport for Transport for London. His portfolio is gargantuan and covers buses, taxis, river transport, trams, roads, traffic, congestion charging – in fact everything except rail and tube.

We have met many times over the four years of the first term of London Government to discuss the many issues which hold us both in sway.

We have a delightful evening hashing over the huge range of transport issues in London. Last time we did this, he actually walked the proposed route of the trial 603 Muswell Hill to Swiss Cottage bus route on his way to the restaurant to meet me – just to see what the residents of Southwood Lane were kicking up about.

What I like about Peter is this hands on approach to his empire. If I have gone into the media saying something he doesn’t like or agree with – he will ring me to have a go at me. Nothing wrong with robust disagreement or challenge. I reckon he could go on to become Transport Commissioner for TfL at some future date – only time will tell. We could do worse.