London’s transport commissioner will refuse to accept a bonus next year, it can be revealed, as Transport for London remained under pressure over the six-figure sums it awarded to almost 600 executives.
The Standard was told the Andy Byford had ruled out accepting any reward in addition to his £355,000 salary, even if TfL hits its government target of “breaking even” on a day-to-day basis by next March.
On Thursday the Standard revealed that 597 TfL staff took home more than £100,000 in 2021/22 — up from 455 in the previous financial year.
A total of 37 serving or departed executives shared £1.6 million in bonuses.
This was despite TfL being under government orders to “demonstrate prudence” in paying bonuses and to ensure that not a penny of the £5 billion received to date in bail-outs was used to fund performance-related pay.
This condition was imposed by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps in February when he granted TfL a fourth bail-out. Hopes of a final £900 million bail-out to keep TfL afloat until next March are now in jeopardy.
A TfL source said Mr Byford, nicknamed Train Daddy, had “announced internally that he’s not taking a bonus for 2021/22” several weeks ago. Mr Byford is entitled to a bonus worth 50 per cent of his salary. Chief officers are entitled to up to 30 per cent of their salary.
Despite the furore, TfL’s remuneration committee is due to meet in secret next Wednesday to consider the extent of bonuses “payable to the commissioner, chief officers and directors” for the 2021/22 year.
TfL decided last November to reintroduce bonuses, amid concerns of a “brain drain” as staff departed for better paid jobs in the private sector. However, bonuses would only be paid if TfL met performance and financial targets.
The biggest bonuses revealed on Thursday were received by former TfL commissioner Mike Brown (£168,006), chief procurement officer Jonathan Patrick (£93,600) and divisional finance director Ken Youngman (£89,125).
These were earned in 2019/20 but paid a year later than normal due to the pandemic.
Mayor Sadiq Khan, who would have had oversight of the payments as chair of TfL’s board, sought to distance himself from the fallout, saying he understood why Londoners would be “shocked” by the figures. He blamed the scale of the pay-outs on lucrative contracts awarded to TfL executives when Boris Johnson was mayor.
On Friday, Mr Khan wrote to Mr Shapps asking for a face-to-face meeting to sort out TfL’s long-term finances. It came after Mr Shapps last week demanded a “reset” of their relationship.
The mayor wrote: “I was glad to read that you agree we must reset our relationship, and I once again ask you to meet with me so that we can finally agree a fair, sustainable, long-term funding deal that will protect London’s transport network – for the sake of the capital and the whole country.”
TfL’s current £203 million bail-out was extended by 19 days last week. It is due to expire on July 13.
Mr Khan said: “The only way TfL would be able to avoid further reductions to bus services is if the government provides sufficient capital funding so that this redirection is not necessary.”
TfL revealed new financial woes this week, saying the proposed axing of 16 day and six night bus routes would only save £35m a year, while passenger numbers on the Elizabeth line had been revised downwards from 250m a year to 130m to 170m a year by 2026.
TfL is also struggling to win back weekday commuters. Prior to last week’s national rail strikes, 93 per cent of passengers had returned to the railways during the week, well ahead of the number of Tube (72 per cent) and bus (83 per cent).
Last week Mr Khan indicated he was not prepared to make changes to the TfL pension scheme, which he had been required to review as a condition of the bailout deals. He said he was “not persuaded” changes were needed to the pension fund.
Mr Khan told Mr Shapps: “As things stand, it is clear that treating TfL’s Pension Scheme as a private sector one imposes unnecessary costs and risks on TfL.
“I do not believe the case for change has been made. Not only am I deeply concerned that it would likely lead to more industrial action, but it is also not clear that cost reductions would be achieved through changes to the TfL Pension Scheme, which is currently in surplus.”
