Defeat Tube privatisation - and any further contradting-out of LUL work
Kiley critcisms of PPP must be handled with care!
As we go to press RMT and ASLEF have organised a joint rally with London Mayor Ken Livingstone to further the fight against privatisation of London Underground and to lay the groundwork for a successful ballot for industrial action.
The Executive Committees of the RMT and ASLEF, the two main tube unions, have agreed to ballot their members over safety concerns. A joint letter sent by both unions to their tube membership said,
"We believe that the London Underground shadow running and the proposed Public Private Partnership seriously threaten the health and safety of our members and indeed the travelling public.
"After the tragedies at Southall, Paddington and Hatfield on the mainline railway we are deeply concerned that the same structure will be replicated on the Underground.
"The intensive service levels and narrow margin for error means a breakdown in safety on the tube will have catastrophic consequences for our members and the public....
"Safety is not negotiable and if our demands are not met then both ASLEF and the RMT will be in dispute with these companies...."
Unity between ASLEF and RMT is a big step forward. It is important that this is worked at at all levels, not just between Mick Rix and Bob Crow, but that this is followed through in every depot. Disunity in the past has led to a lack of confidence that RMT members alone could be effective.
Whilst this was never true, the change of approach over the last year by ASLEF must be built upon. United action is the one thing the government really fears.
Robert Kiley, the new Commissioner of Transport for London, brought in by Ken Livingstone has made a clear analysis of the government's PPP privatisation plans. He is clear that they do not stack up:
"On the basis of the information made available to me, I have concluded that the basic structure of London Underground's PPP as presently conceived is fatally flawed and will not promote an improvement in the service offered to Londoners.
"At the heart of the case for the PPP is the claim that "risk" would be transferred to the private sector. However, proponents are never entirely clear as to precisely what this means; i.e., what risks are being transferred and how the transfer is accomplished.
"Any assessment of risk transfer must begin with one inescapable reality: the trains must run. Without a functioning Tube, London itself cannot function. Thus, in a worst case scenario, the Government (or the GLA) will be forced to pay what is necessary to keep the system going.
"This overriding obligation to ensure service means that the entire risk can never be transferred. And when coupled with the absence of provisions for meaningful supervision or contractual enforcement of the Infracos by Transport for London (TfL), it means that the transfer of risk is largely illusory.
"TfL will be forced to assume responsibility, and to spend what it takes to finish the job. Is this a transfer of risk?
"Because the Infracos are free to ignore the constraints of the contracts without risk of meaningful commercial consequence, the PPP contracts are not effective in transferring the risk of performance failure to the private sector.
"Because they stifle rather than promote competition, the PPP contracts will not provide the claimed efficiency savings; they in fact will result in higher costs."
But a word of caution is needed - Kiley may have denounced the government's plans. But are his options much better? LUL workers must fight PPP - and be prepared to put a halt to any other plans that threaten their jobs and conditions.
Mr Kiley announced his proposals for the modernisation of London Underground at a meeting chaired by Ken Livingstone. His plan calls for £10 billion in investment over 15 years.
That consists of roughly £6 billion in surplus operating revenues and government grant, £2 billion in partnerships with the private sector and £2 billion in revenue securitisation obligations, which serve the same function as bonds.
As Livingstone pointed out, this has the advantage of retaining the unified management of the system, the absence of which has produced chaos on the national rail network. But what of his other assertion that, "I believe we have a clear basis for Mr Kiley and the government to work together to produce an outcome which fully involves the private sector."?
As Kiley points out, "Transport for London fully expects that at least 90 per cent of the investment programme will be carried out by the private sector under this plan."
Whatever one's views on the issuing of bonds - and there are good reasons for concern about this method of funding - the proposals to include £2 billion in partnership funding must raise concern.
Yes, some of the objections to the way that the government would fragment control have been dealt with, but it still seems that the private sector will be used to replace existing LUL workers wherever possible.
That was the implication of the earlier Hutton review. Kiley has taken this one stage further. The appearance is given that Livingstone is offering the government a compromise - drop the PPP and I will ensure that the private sector is allowed to participate as much as possible.
Of course, it is true that it will be on different terms. It has always been the case that major new build has been done by outside contract, not by existing LUL staff. But Kiley's proposals include potentially handing over more than just the right to bid for new build contracts. Existing maintenance work will be threatened.
Kiley is no friend of tube workers. His interests lie elsewhere.
Yes we should support his denunciation of the government. We should be working closely with Ken Livingstone as Mayor to fight for proper government funding and for a safe tube system.
But our victory won't be achieved by clever manoeuvres or tactical subterfuges. Only united industrial action against all potential threats will achieve that.