TSSA POLICY SUBMISSION TO THE LONDON LABOUR PARTY - 2020 Mayor of London, London Assembly and London Borough Elections
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
TSSA POLICY SUBMISSION
TO THE LONDON LABOUR
PARTY
2020 Mayor of London, London Assembly and
London Borough Elections
What TSSA members in Transport for London want to see
Labour deliver in London over the next four years.
www.tssa.org.ukIntroduction
A large number of TSSA members in Transport for London participated in a survey
during July and August 2019 in which we asked them what were their priorities and
concerns which we could take to the London Labour Party as part of its manifesto
consultation. What follows is the product of the responses that we received.
Many of those concerns relate to their work in Transport for London where they
have had to endure years of below inflation pay rises – if they received one at all –
against a backdrop of substantial job cuts that have seen over, so far, 20% of
employees lose their jobs, with many leaving the organisation.
There are a great deal of issues that TfL members are aggrieved about in work,
including the widening pay gaps that exist between senior managers and the
lowest paid staff, not to mention the pay gaps endured because of gender and
BAME inequalities. All TfL employees want is a Fair Deal.
Many of the issues in TfL are down to the Conservative Government’s decision in
2016 to abolish the general operating grant to the organisation. Since then, cuts
have been the order of the day, compounded by the failure of Crossrail to open on
time, the fare revenue from which it had been hoped would alleviate the
situation. With this in mind, TSSA members are calling for a reinstatement of the
general grant and for the Mayor of London to take control of the Crossrail Project.
This submission isn’t only about TfL, however, as TSSA members are also citizens
who want to see change that would make London safer, housing that is affordable
and transport that is accessible.
TSSA calls on Labour to recognise the concerns in the pages that follow before
then going onto adopt the policies that would transform the lives of the many.
1|PageExecutive Summary
TSSA members in Transport for London have identified five main areas of concern
which, together, can be summarised as a better deal for London – for its people,
for TfL and for its employees.
All of these areas are connected because as TfL continues on a path of cost savings
and job cuts, the services that it can offer will inevitably either change, reduce or
be lost. All of these outcomes will have an impact on both the citizens of London
who use those facilities as well as the staff who are employed to provide them.
This is why we begin this policy document emphasising TfL’s Funding and ways to
improve that position, including campaigning activities and radical policies. It is
also why we raise the need for the Mayor to take control of Crossrail’s contractors
in order to get the job done.
For many Londoners, the use of public transport is a key part of their lives,
whether they travel by bus, tube, or train. Transport enables people to be able to
move around, to have more freedom, more choice about the jobs that they do, the
schools and universities they attend and the leisure activities they pursue as well
as to be connected with family and friends. The ability to travel when and where
you want is also an equality issue, not to mention a contributor to climate change.
TSSA is, therefore, calling for a variety of policies to be adopted and implemented
to address areas of concern, including around the impact of changes to the bus
network which have disproportionately affected those people on the lowest
incomes.
We also emphasise the need to revise road user charges through adopting a per
mile/time of day system to cut congestion whilst improving bus journey times, air
quality and road safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
TSSA also supports the London Mayor’s aspirations for a London Metro in the South
and South East of the Capital but we want to see this operated within the public
sector and not subjected to private profit extraction as happens with London
Overground and London Bus.
In the document that follows, we express our views on crime in London amidst TfL
staff raising concerns about their personal safety at work, when travelling and in
the communities where they live. For this reason, we draw attention to policing
and knife crime, calling for a Vision Zero approach to assaults and violence against
passengers and staff on TfL services. At the same time, however, we also want to
see a reversal of the Tory austerity cuts to youth services and education as a way
to tackle these issues.
TSSA’s manifesto for the London Labour Party also demands action on housing. We
want to see commitments – and action - to build more genuinely affordable homes
as part of developments, we want to see more social and council homes being
2|Pageconstructed and we want to see rent controls that mean lower paid workers are
not forced to have to travel further to work as they are priced out of living closer
to their employment. The Union is also calling for the Mayor to secure an extension
to the number of housing providers that recognise TfL staff as key workers.
In the Manifesto we ask Labour in London to adopt a commitment to TfL staff who
have borne the brunt of the organisation’s cuts. As we stated in the Introduction,
all TSSA members want is to be treated fairly through a Fair Deal that will include
an eradication of unlawful discrimination in pay, reduce pay gaps between the
highest and lowest staff and introduce a fair and transparent pay and grading
structure. Underpinning this is a genuine commitment to collective bargaining,
including in those organisations that provide services for Transport for London.
We end by commending the contents of our Policy Submission to the London
Labour Party.
3|PageCONTENTS
Subject Page
Introduction 1
Executive Summary 2
TfL Funding 6
Campaign to reinstate the Government Grant to TfL 6
Public ownership of London Overground and London Buses 8
Devolution of Vehicle Excise Duty to TfL and London Councils 9
Implement radical funding packages 9
New Deal for Transport in London 13
Creation of TfL controlled London Metro 13
Revision of road user charges 15
Deliver a Better bus network for all Londoners 18
Mayor to take control of contractors on Crossrail Project 20
Make transport in London more accessible for disabled people 22
Crime in London 23
Increase police officer number in MPS and BTP 23
Vision Zero approach to assaults and violence
against staff and passengers on TfL services 25
Ensure adequate staffing of Overground stations and 27
bring to an end lone and unsafe working.
To tackle knife crime 27
Supporting youth services and education 28
Housing in London 31
Genuinely affordable housing in private sector developments 31
TfL staff recognised as Key Workers 33
A better deal for TfL Staff 34
A Fair Deal for TfL Staff to remove pay gaps and inequalities 34
Fair Pay Deal elements 36
Fair Pay Deal for non-consolidated performance awards 37
4|PageFair Pay Deal with a Transparent pay and grading structure 37
Fair for Everyone 38
Fair treatment for apprentices 38
Adopt a Collective Bargaining Standard 39
for all GLA companies and suppliers
5|PageTfL Funding
There are three strands to our submission:
1. Campaign to reinstate the Government Grant to TfL;
2. Public ownership of London Overground and London Bus
3. Devolve to TfL and London Councils the Vehicle Excise Duty paid by Londoners
instead of perpetuating the subsidy the Capital makes to the rest of Britain;
4. Actively work to implement radical funding packages including implementing
Workplace Parking Levies and reinvesting Land Value Tax profits in the transport
network that they benefit from.
• Policy: Campaign to reinstate the Government Grant to TfL.
• Research: Boris Johnson was elected Mayor of London and Chair of Transport
for London (TfL) in May 2008. In his first TfL Business Plan, published in
November 2008 for the period 2009/10 to 2017/18 he announced plans to
cut £5bn from the public sector company whilst presiding over a policy of
increasing fares (initially planned as RPI+1% but later increased to RPI+2%1).
Johnson blamed the ConDem Government’s Comprehensive Spending review
for the need to put up TfL fares by RPI+2% in 20112 but had already planned
to increase them by RPI+1%.
In addition to the £5bn cut from the TfL budget, the Conservative led
Coalition government’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne,
decided to cut £2.17bn over four years from its support to TfL. In 2009 the
Transport Grant from the UK Government stood at £3.314bn (which
contributed to TfL’s annual budget of £9.6bn in 2010-11).
TfL Business Plan for 2014 clearly expected to continue to receive a general
(transport/operating) grant from the DfT of approximately £700m a year up
to the financial year 2020/21.3 However, following discussions with Johnson
1
See Page 82, TfL Business Plan 2009/10-2017/18 at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/business-plan-2010-11-2017-
18.pdf
2
See Page 10, London Assembly’s “Balancing Act – The Mayor’s 2011 Fare Decision” at:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/FINAL%20fares%20report2011_
0.pdf
3
See Page 82 TfL Business Plan 2014 at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-business-plan-2014.pdf
6|Pageand his TfL officials,4 the Conservative Government then brought forward
plans to end the general grant, first cutting its value and then ending it
completely at the end of the financial year 2017/18.5
Consequently, TfL is the only major world city that does not receive a
central government subsidy6 despite the importance of the UK’s capital to
the country’s economy.
The effect of losing the grant has been that “TfL has had to manage the
impact of an average reduction of around £700m per year in government
grant”7.This has meant that TfL has had to operate with a budget deficit
since 2014. In 2019, TfL forecast the deficit to be £874m8.
Since losing the operating grant, TfL has had to implement a series of
measures, including:
- make significant cuts to the bus network which is known to be the
form of transport most used by people on the lowest incomes;
- cut 30% of the cost of supporting its operations across all of its
various activities, meaning that large numbers of jobs have been
lost and the value of pay suppressed by below inflation wage
increases;
- paused proactive, non safety-critical, renewal work on London's
road network which had previously seen significant sums invested.9
4
See: Letter from Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary of State for Transport, 2 nd March 2016 at:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/spending-review-2015-funding-agreement-letter-march-2016.pdf
5
See Page 26, TfL Business Plan 2016 at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-business-plan-december-2016.pdf
6
See: “TfL’s budget shows operating deficit almost halved as Mayor calls for Government investment in
transport” published by TfL 20th March 2019 and available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
releases/2019/march/tfl-s-budget-shows-operating-deficit-almost-halved-as-mayor-calls-for-government-
investment-in-transport See also: The House of Commons Library looked at Paris, Berlin and New York – at:
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7425#fullreport
7
“TfL’s budget shows operating deficit almost halved as Mayor calls for Government investment in transport”
published by TfL 20th March 2019 (See URL in Note 6)
8
See Page 128, Transport for London Budget 2019/20: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf
9
See Box 2, Page 22, House of Commons Transport Committee “Local roads funding and maintenance: filling
the gap” report published 1st July 2019 at:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/1486/1486.pdf
See also “Written evidence submitted by London Councils (LRF0079) to the Transport Committee at:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/transport-
committee/local-roads-funding-and-governance/written/91503.html
7|Page• Policy: Public ownership of London Overground and London Buses
• Research: TSSA believes that TfL’s financial situation would be considerably
enhanced by public ownership of both London Overground (currently
operated by Arriva Rail London) and London Bus.
Looking at London Bus where a number of private companies compete to
operate different routes, public ownership would enable TfL to use the
profits for the benefit of Londoners rather than allowing them to go as
shareholder dividends. The following table illustrates the after tax profits of
the companies involved:
Company Name Profit Company
Number
2016 2017 2018
London United £5.1m £5.8 £0.639m 02328561
Arriva London £12.7m £15.3m £10.9m 02328559
North
Arriva London £51k (£4.9m £2.8m £5.7m 02328467
South income)
Abellio London £3.6m (£7.5m £4.9m No accounts 03786162
Ltd income) published to
date
Abellio West £1.02m £0.747m No accounts 00689260
London Ltd published to
date
(Go Ahead) £32.2m £34.2m £32.4m 02328489
London General
Transport
Services
Metroline Ltd £28.1m £21.7m £14.8m 02826284
Stagecoach UK £20.2m £18.4m £13.3m SC100764
Bus (London)
Total £102.97m £103.85m £77.74m
Total after tax £284.56m
profit 2016-
2018
NOTE: The profit figures do not include the additional amounts attributed in the company
accounts to “income.” Two small companies (Sullivan Buses and Tower Travel) are also
omitted.
As can be seen, TfL would have an opportunity to gain around £100m a year
by public ownership of its bus operations.
8|Page• Policy: Devolve to TfL and London Councils the Vehicle Excise Duty paid
by Londoners instead of perpetuating the subsidy the Capital makes to
the rest of Britain
• Research: Unlike the rest of the UK, TfL and the 33 London local authorities
do not receive any funding from central government to maintain London’s
roads. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is the only region in England
where this is the case. The loss of TfL’s Operating Grant, alongside the 63%
reduction in real terms core funding for local authorities has meant that the
condition of London’s highways has significantly worsened with a
maintenance backlog estimated in 2018 as £907m.10
What has made things worse is that from 2020, the £500m of Vehicle Excise
Duty collected from Londoners each year to fund road improvements will be
given to the Highways Agency who will use that money almost exclusively
outside the Capital,11 at a time when the Mayor is already having to use
revenue from London Tube fares to fund the city’s roads.12
All of this comes on top of issues that have also occurred with the delay to
the opening of the Central Section of the Elizabeth Line, revenues from
which had been hoped to cut the deficit, as well as fears that capital
investment support from central government will also be cut from 2021-22.
• Policy: Actively work to implement radical funding packages including
implementing Workplace Parking Levies and reinvesting Land Value Tax
profits in the transport network that they benefit from.
• Research: In an effort to cut emissions by encouraging more people to use
public transport as we face an environmental emergency, some radical
funding packages need to be implemented. Those funding streams come at a
time when the ability to operate the transport network is under strain
because of the loss of the operating grant from Central Government.
Two funding packages that should be implemented are:
- Workplace Parking Levies
In 2012 Nottingham City Council introduced a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL)
10
London Transport Officers Group (LoTAG) State of the City Report estimates the maintenance backlog as
£907m in 2018
11
Questions to the Mayor: Vehicle Excise Duty Devolution: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2016/1474
12
See Note 9.
9|Pageto tackle problems associated with traffic congestion, by both providing
funding for local transport and by acting as an incentive for employers to
manage and potentially reduce their workplace parking. Two new tram
lines, improvements to Nottingham railway station and the largest electric
bus fleet in Europe have been delivered using WPL funds.13 Alongside the
scheme, the City Council also introduced an all operator pay as you go
smartcard to make it easier to use public transport.
For the licensing period 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020, Nottingham City
Council’s WPL costs £415 per workplace parking place per year for
employers who provide 11 or more liable places.14 Employers, rather than
employees, are responsible for paying any WPL charge, although employers
can choose to reclaim part or all of the cost of the WPL from their
employees. VAT is not payable by employers to Nottingham City Council on
the WPL charge. Any parking charges an employer introduces for its
employees are, however, subject to VAT.
The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy supports the use of WPLs by
London boroughs that have already suffered a 63% reduction in core funding
since 2010. The Mayor’s Strategy commits to
“investigate proposals for the next generation of road user charging
systems. These could replace schemes such as the Congestion
Charge, Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone More
sophisticated road user charging and/or workplace parking levy
schemes could be used to contribute to the achievement of the
policies and proposals in this strategy, including mode share, road
danger reduction and environmental objectives, and to help reduce
congestion on the road network and support efficient traffic
movement.”15
Transport for London’s Website already has guidance16 for London Boroughs
considering introducing Workplace Parking Levies against the “Mayor's aim
that 80% of trips in London be made by walking, cycling or by public
transport by 2041. The revenue raised will be spent on improving local
transport”
13
Mayor of London’s Question Time, July 15, 2015 at: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2015/2068
14
See: https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/transport-parking-and-streets/parking-
and-permits/workplace-parking-levy
15
See Proposal 21, Page 93, Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy 2018 at:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayors-transport-strategy-2018.pdf
16
See Workplace Parking Levies at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/workplace-parking-levies
10 | P a g eThe London Councils have suggested a WPL system that would be based on
“either a flat rate charge of £750 per year (a level based on factors
including a return bus fare, average on-street parking charges and the level
needed to be effective in mode shift) or differing minimum rates for outer,
inner and central London.”17 Several London Boroughs have already carried
out public consultation on Workplace Parking Levies (eg, Hounslow,
Camden).
- Land Value Tax
Since 1995, the value of land in the UK has risen by 544 per cent whereas
the value of the buildings sitting on it has only risen by 219 per cent. And
the value of land is largely determined by its location, not by any effort on
the part of the landowner.
One of the main problems with Land Value Tax is understanding what it
actually relates to. In a City Metric article from January 2018, Tom Copley
AM wrote:
“Unlike council tax and business rates, Land Value Tax is not a tax on
the property that sits on the land. It is paid by the landowner, not
the tenant, and applies regardless of whether the land is developed
or not. It is not only a source of taxation but a disincentive for
landowners to “land bank” sitting on undeveloped land and waiting
for its value to rise…When the state invests large sums of public
money in a project like Crossrail, land values rise along the route.
LVT would allow some of that rise in value to be recouped by the
taxpayer.”18
Current tax and business rates are only imposed on occupied and developed
land; which can discourage development. This means some sites in London,
which could be used to meet housing needs, are being under-utilised as car
parks or plots with long-demolished buildings.
Land Value Tax would be a replacement for Council Tax, Business Rates and
other forms of taxation.19
For the Mayor of London to be able to benefit from a London Land Value Tax
17
See: https://www.transport-network.co.uk/London-boroughs-eye-750-workplace-parking-charge/16023
18
See: https://www.citymetric.com/politics/uk-needs-rethink-its-local-taxes-it-s-time-land-value-tax-3604
19
See Labour Land Tax submission to London Finance Commission: http://www.labourland.org/submission-
london-finance-commission/
11 | P a g ewould require devolution of additional powers from Central Government.20
However, to a degree these powers have already been forthcoming through
the Supplementary Business Rate that TfL has been able to use to part pay
for Crossrail, raising £4bn. The Supplementary Business Rate works by using
just the uplift in land values (reflected in the property assessment for
Business Rates) on only the larger business properties in London.
One additional local tax to consider could be:
- hypothecated employers tax (the “versement de transport” or transport
payment).
Pioneered by the regional transport authority for the Ile de France that
includes Paris, the tax is paid by employers with 11 or more employees and
is designed to contribute to the cost of public transport with about 40% of
the money collected going towards operational costs. The rate varies
dependent upon the number of inhabitants in the designated area but in a
city like Paris it can be 2.95% of the total gross payroll. The rate can reduce
if publicly owned transport is operated by the transport authority instead of
it being contracted out.
One of the advantages of the transport tax is that it means that those
employers that benefit from improvements in public transport then make a
contribution to the costs. In one sense, the arrangement is similar to the
Supplementary Business Rate that the Mayor of London currently uses to
finance part of the Crossrail Programme. However, unless specifically
legislated against, the disadvantage could be that employers could be
incentivised to pass on the costs to workers.
20
See: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/mayor-positive-about-a-land-value-tax-trial
12 | P a g eNew Deal for Transport in London
There are five strands to our submission:
1. TfL to take control over suburban National Rail services in London to create a
London Metro;
2. Revision of road user charges
3. Deliver a better bus network for all Londoners
4. Mayor to take control of contractors on Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) Project
5. Make transport in London more accessible for those disabled people
• Policy: TfL to take control over the suburban National Rail services in
London to create a London Metro.
• Research: In early 2016 Mayor Boris Johnson and the Secretary of State for
Transport, Patrick McLoughlin MP conducted a public consultation that
announced the intention to work in partnership around rail services in
London and the South East.21
Amongst the proposals was the creation of a London Suburban Metro service
with the potential for more than 80% of stations to have a train every 15
minutes, up from 67% at the time, as well as the potential for more regular
services via Clapham Junction, south east London and Kent.22 To achieve
this, the scheme included the Government/Mayoral plan to transfer the
inner London suburban rail services (defined as those that operated mostly
or wholly within Greater London) contained in various passenger rail
franchises from the DfT to TfL responsibility. The process of transfer was
scheduled to occur over five years from 2017 as London based rail franchises
came up for re-tender.23
21
Consultation document available at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/dft-tfl-rail-prospectus.pdf
22
Department for Transport news story “Transport Secretary and Mayor set out vision for rail travel across
London and the south east” at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-and-mayor-set-
out-vision-for-rail-travel-across-london-and-the-south-east
23
The franchises involved were South Western (in 2017), South Eastern (2018) and Thameslink, Southern and
Great Northern (2021). See more detail in Rail Technology Magazine article published 14 th October 2016 “Khan
submits plan to take more control of suburban rail services” available at:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/HS2/khan-submits-plan-to-take-more-control-of-suburban-rail-
services-/154125
13 | P a g eHowever, in a controversial statement to the House of Commons in
December 2016, Chris Grayling MP, who had taken over as Secretary of State
for Transport, rejected the scheme which had previously had all party
support in London, alleging that it would risk “the “biggest restructuring
since the 1920s”, when TfL had no plans for inevitable rising passenger
numbers.”24 The statement was doubly controversial because it
subsequently emerged that in 2013 Grayling had lobbied Johnson, when he
was Mayor, opposing the transfer of responsibilities “to keep suburban rail
services out of the clutches of any future Labour London Mayor.”25
More recently, in its response to the Williams Rail Review, TfL has re-stated
its aspiration about a London Metro Service that would focus on services in
the South and South East of the Capital. This would include devolution to
TfL of those services currently operated by Great Northern and Southern
commuter services when the TSGN franchise is re-let in September 2021 and
would be followed by other London commuter services.26
In 2016, the Mayor proposed the following services should be devolved to
TfL:
- To/from Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Victoria serving southeast
London
- To/from London Bridge and Victoria serving south central London
- To/from Waterloo serving southwest London
- To/from Moorgate serving north central London
The services targeted are considered “suitable” for devolution because they
would be “stopping” suburban services that terminate inside, or just
beyond, the London boundary.27
24
The Independent, 6th December 2016: “Warning of higher fares after plan to 'renationalise' trains into
London is dumped by Government” at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/warning-of-higher-
fares-after-plan-to-renationalise-trains-into-london-is-dumped-by-government-a7459066.html
25
The Independent, 7th December 2016: “Chris Grayling scrapped TfL Overground expansion because he didn't
want Labour to control it, leaked letter reveals” at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tfl-
railway-london-overground-expansion-chris-grayling-letter-leaked-a7460586.html
26
See Page 10, Transport for London, 18th January 2019, “Evidence to the Williams Rail Review” at:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/evidence-to-williams-rail-review-final.pdf
27
Rail Technology Magazine, 16th September 2016 “TfL picks London routes ripe for devolution ahead of DfT
approval” at: http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/London-Underground-and-TfL/tfl-picks-london-routes-
ripe-for-devolution-ahead-of-dft-approval
14 | P a g eIn its submission to the Williams Review, TfL has listed its objectives for the
London Metro as:
- A more reliable and better connected and expanded public transport
network in south London, Surrey and Kent;
- A good public transport experience for all passengers on the network;
- A public transport network that supports national and regional
housing delivery and economic growth ambitions.28
The submission goes onto say:
“These objectives aim to address the shortcomings of the rail
network outlined above:
- The south and south east London rail network is not delivering
to its full potential
- The south and south east London rail network is failing to
provide customers with a good public transport experience
- The south and south east London rail network could do more to
unlock housing and economic growth”29
The one area where TSSA would disagree with TfL’s latest London Metro
aspiration is in relation to transferring infrastructure manager (IM)
responsibility from Network Rail.
The Union is opposed to the break up of the public sector company for a
variety of reasons including that we want to retain it in the public sector
where its economies of scale mean that it can be more cost effective. We
also oppose the Conservative Government’s ideological aspiration to break it
up and privatise the parts, introducing yet more costly and unsafe interfaces
to a railway which is plagued by a lack of integration and coordinated
direction. A Labour Mayor would essentially be bringing about Conservative
Party policy.
• Policy elements: TSSA is asking the London Labour Party to adopt a
manifesto that will commit to the London Metro but without the transfer of
Infrastructure Manager responsibilities away from Network Rail
• Policy: Revision of road user charges
• Research: In an attempt to control central London traffic congestion,
London Mayor Ken Livingstone introduced the Congestion Charge in February
28
See Page 24 of Evidence to Williams Rail Review, URL at Note 18 above.
29
See Note 20.
15 | P a g e2003. The congestion charge is also meant to reduce the length of journeys
within the congestion zone, improve bus services and encourage motorists
to use public transport instead of their cars.
The charge operates between 07:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Friday,
excluding public holidays and applies to all drivers in central London
although there are exemptions or discounts for some groups (eg, people
with disabilities and residents living within the congestion zone can get 100%
or 90% discounts, respectively).
The London Low Emission Zone (LEZ) charge was introduced in February
2008 and applies to commercial vehicles—such as lorries, buses, and
coaches, with diesel engines. Cars were explicitly excluded. The objective
of the new scheme was to help London meet its EU air pollution obligations
by cutting down emissions from certain vehicles. Applied 24 hours a day and
across most of Greater London, the LEZ is paid in addition to the Congestion
Charge (where applicable). The daily charge is currently:
- £100 for larger vans, minibuses and other specialist vehicles;
- £200 for lorries, buses, coaches and other heavier vehicles.
Replacing London’s T (toxicity) Charge in April 2019, the Ultra Low Emission
Charge (ULEZ) covers the same zone as the Congestion Charge but will
expand in October 2021 to apply across virtually all of the London area
within the North and South Circular roads.
ULEZ is intended to improve air quality by cutting vehicle NOx30 and PM31
emissions meaning that to avoid the charge, vehicles have to meet the most
modern standards.32
ULEZ operates 24 hours a day and introduces a daily charge of £12.50 for
diesel cars over 4 years old and most vans over 3 years old. The charge is
£100 for heavier vehicles, including lorries (over 3.5 tonnes), buses and
coaches (over 5 tonnes).
The ULEZ charge comes on top of the Congestion Charge, meaning that a
trip to London could cost £24 in fees alone.
30
Nitrogen Oxide
31
Particulate Matter
32
See: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ways-to-meet-the-standard?intcmp=52221
16 | P a g eTo help compliance with the ULEZ, the Labour Mayor has also introduced a
car scrappage scheme for small businesses that own non-compliant diesel
vans and cars.33
In his London Environment Strategy,34 Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced
plans to implement Zero Emission Zones in town centres by 2020 as well as
in central London by 2025.35
Despite the sound reasons for introducing the various charges, there has
been criticism, and not least because of the unfairness and disproportionate
impact on people with lower incomes who have to pay the same charge as
those with much higher earnings and wealth.
Amongst other issues with the current arrangements are that:
- the Congestion Charge and ULEZ do not reflect the level of vehicle
usage - a driver who drives 1 kilometre is charged the same as one
who drives 50 kilometres;
- the complexity of the current arrangements that apply different
vehicle standards, hours of operation, charge amounts and payment
Arrangements.36
Instead, TSSA is calling for:
- a per mile/time of day road user charging for all vehicles travelling
in the GLA area, in order to cut congestion to improve bus journey
times, improve air quality and improve road safety for pedestrians
and cyclists;
- any new London wide charges to take into account the needs of low
income users, small businesses and charities;
- a more generous scrappage scheme to help the shift to more
environmentally friendly cars, including for taxis and private hire
33
See details at: https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/487/london-ulez-charge-2019-do-you-have-to-pay-the-low-
emissions-charge#tcharge
34
At page 113, available at:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_environment_strategy_0.pdf
35
See Air Quality News, 14th May 2018, “Mayor sets 2020 timetable for London ‘Zero Emission Zones’” at:
https://airqualitynews.com/2018/05/14/mayor-sets-2020-timetable-for-london-zero-emission-zones/
36
See Centre for London’s “Next Generation Road User Charging” report at:
https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Next-Generation-Road-User-Charging.pdf
17 | P a g evehicles.
• Policy: Deliver a Better bus network for all Londoners
• Research: TfL has recently implemented 29 of its 33 planned changes
contained within the Central London Bus Services Review despite meeting a
great deal of negative reaction37 in the consultation. Responses were
received from 7,184 people as well as 134 stakeholder organisations.
Amongst the individual responses were large majorities on most existing
routes who made it clear that they would incur both longer journey times
and have to increase the number of interchanges to get to their final
destinations.
The ideas behind the proposal are supposed to reflect reducing bus usage
and changing patterns of demand meaning that by 2024 Inner London
services will have been reduced whilst those in Outer London increased.
However, for a lot of people, the pain is being felt now but the promised
benefits won’t be seen for some time to come.
In its latest Travel in London report,38 TfL states that:
“Total demand for travel is driven both by overall population trends
and changes in the travel behaviour of individuals. At the individual
level, travel behaviour is fundamentally linked to personal incomes.
Employed people and those on higher incomes make more trips on
average each day.”
The fact that travel behaviour is linked to personal incomes means that
those people on lower incomes make greater use of buses as the Equality
Trust found:
“The relative affordability of bus travel compared to other forms of
transport makes it particularly important for those on low incomes.
With the irregular working hours of some low-paid jobs requiring
travel at less popular times, bus services operating very early and
very late may also be the only choice for those who need to get to
37
See Page 2 of Central London Bus Services Review Consultation Report April 2019 available at:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/central-london/user_uploads/clbsr-consultation-report.pdf
38
Travel in London 11, published in 2018 and available to download from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-
london-report-11.pdf
18 | P a g ework.”39
Not only are 1 in 5 working Londoners paid less than the London Living
Wage,40 but previous research by TfL has identified families on low incomes
as being among those who place a heavy reliance on bus usage41 and who
tend to have longer journeys and less flexibility to change them.42 Longer
journeys and less flexibility is attributable to increased private sector rents
and cuts to in work benefits, meaning that people on low incomes who work
in inner city jobs have to live further out of London.43 For many people in
the circumstances of low income, the choice is between spending more on
travel costs or spending more time travelling by bus.
Consequently, adverse changes to bus services have a disproportionately
greater impact on low income working people.
On the basis of the above, TSSA is calling for a focus on:
- Stopping bus services cuts and fighting for subsidy to support low
fares;
- Improving bus services in outer London
- Making bus journeys more reliable with a step change in bus priority
such as:
- more bus lanes;
- better signals;
- better enforcement;
- reducing delays to bus passengers in new proposed road
schemes and road works
- increased bus lane hours; and
- express services.
- Better, greener, bus fleets that have provision for USP chargers and
WiFI)
- Better bus driver facilities (particularly toilets) and safety culture
(including fatigue audits and alleviation of timetable pressures).
39
Page 5, “Taken for a ride: How UK public transport subsidies entrench inequality” The Equality Trust,
available at:
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/Taken%20for%20a%20Ride.pdf
40
Trust for London: London’s Poverty Profile: https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/topics/low-pay/
41
See Page 7, Transport Classification of Londoners (TCoL) (February 2017) :
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/transport-classification-of-londoners-presenting-the-segments.pdf
42
Page 200, Travel In London 11, published in 2018 and available to download from:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-11.pdf
43
Tim Bellenger, London TravelWatch, quoted in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/aug/18/london-bus-cuts-to-hit-working-class-hardest-says-watchdog
19 | P a g e• Policy: Mayor to take control of contractors on Crossrail (Elizabeth Line)
Project
• Research: Construction of the twin bore, 13 miles long,44 Central Section of
the Crossrail Line under London began at Canary Wharf on 15th May 2009 and
was originally supposed to have been completed by December 2018.
However, that date was delayed, originally to Autumn 2019 and then to
sometime in a six month window between October 2020 and March 2021.
Press reports indicated that even if March 2021 is achieved there will be
parts of the line that will still not be completed (eg, station at Bond Street)
whilst only twelve of the planned 24 trains an hour will be able to operate
initially. 45
The project has faced financial challenges from the start. The cost of the
project was originally budgeted at £15.9bn in 2007 but that was cut in 2010
by £1.1bn (to £14.8bn)46 as part of the Conservative Liberal Democrat
Coalition Government’s Spending Review.47 In July 2018 the budget was
increased by £590m to £15.4bn whilst in December 2018 it was announced
that a further uplift of £2.15bn would be made, meaning that the budget
stands at £17.6bn. The cost of trains, at £1.1bn, is additional to these
costs.48
The company set up to design and deliver the new railway is Crossrail Ltd
(CRL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL which is jointly sponsored by the
Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Transport through the DfT.
This means that the “CRL Board is accountable for the overall direction and
management of the organisation to ensure that the project is delivered in
accordance with its statutory and contractual obligations and in line with
the UK Corporate Governance Code.”49
The reasons for the delays and inflated costs have been the subject of a
44
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/railway-tunnels/
45
See: The Guardian, 26th April 2019 “Crossrail could be delayed beyond 2021 target, admits chief” at:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/26/crossrail-could-be-delayed-beyond-2021-target-admits-
chief
46
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46507417
47
See: Page 8 of London Assembly’s Transport Committee’s “Derailed: Getting Crossrail back on
Track” report at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/final_-
_london_assembly_transport_committee_crossrail_investigation_report_0.pdf
48
See Note 40.
49
See Page 14, “Crossrail (Elizabeth Line)” House of Common Research Paper Number CBP00876 (23 January
2019) available to download at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00876
20 | P a g eseries of investigations and reviews including one by the London Assembly’s
Transport Committee which published its findings in April 2019 in a report
entitled: “Derailed: Getting Crossrail back on Track.”50 The report listed a
series of 11 recommendations under four headings:
- Governance and Risk;
- Leadership and corporate culture;
- Transparency and communication risk
- Project Design
Included under the third of headings is Recommendation 8, ‘The Mayor as
Chair of TfL’ which stated:
“The Mayor and TfL Board must strengthen control over TfL, and
implement the necessary processes to allow them to remain fully
informed and on top of progress on the projects they are ultimately
accountable for.”
In can seem that this issue lies solely at the door of the Mayor of London
alone. In another investigation, carried out by the House of Commons’
Public Accounts Committee,51 the Department for Transport and Crossrail
Limited came in for severe criticism, especially:
“Despite acknowledging that there were major failings in the
programme, the Department and Crossrail Limited have been
unwilling to accept their responsibilities for the significant delays
and cost overruns of the programme.”52
The effect of the delay in Crossrail is that it has created a hole in TfL’s
budget, expressed in December 2018 as £200m53 in Fiscal Year 2020 and
£400m in Fiscal Year 2021.54 However, by May 2019, newspapers were
reporting that the same ratings agency, Moody’s, were estimating the loss in
revenue to be as much as £1bn.55
50
See Note 40.
51
“Crossrail: progress review”, published 1st April 2019 and available at:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/2004/2004.pdf
52
Paragraph 6, page 7 of document in Note 44.
53
Budget and Performance Committee, London Assembly, November 2018 at Page 5: “TfL Finances: The end
of the line?” at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/tfl_finances_-_final.pdf
54
See: https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Moodys-Crossrail-delay-to-cost-400m-in-lost-revenue-in-
2021/15487.
55
See, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/crossrail-delay-cost-tfl-elizabeth-
line-transport-london-moodys-a8894561.html
21 | P a g eConsequently, TSSA is calling for the Mayor to:
- take control of contractors on Crossrail Project;
- conduct and publish an investigation into about how private sector
contractors excessively profit from public sector projects for the
level of work carried out;
- adopt a policy of holding private sector skills like project
management in the public sector.
• Policy: Make transport in London more accessible for disabled people
• Research: In December 2016 the Mayor announced56 a £200m investment in
step free access for London Underground stations. The plan was for the
investment to make more than thirty additional LU stations step-free
accessible by 2021-22, meaning that approximately 100 stations (40%) of
London Underground would be step-free.
TfL figures reveal that by March 2019 there were 78 Tube stations, 58
London Overground stations and 9 TfL Rail stations that have step-free
access. All DLR stations are step-free.57 The same announcement indicated
that by 2021-22 a further fifteen LU stations will have been made step free.
Our aspiration is that:
- all LU, Overground and TfL Rail stations should be step free;
- an alliance, including disability groups, campaigners, pressure
groups, etc, is built to campaign for full and proper funding for TfL
and Crossrail, with a view to making all services accessible and
improving standards.
56
See: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayors-200m-investment-in-step-free-access
57
See (undated, but post March 2019): https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/step-
free-access
22 | P a g eCrime in London
There are six linked strands to TSSA members’ aspirations:
1. To increase the numbers of police officers and support staff employed by the
Metropolitan Police Service and specifically British Transport Police;
2. To tackle knife crime;
3. Adopt a Vision Zero approach to assaults and violence against staff and
passengers on all TfL sponsored services;
4. Ensure adequate staffing of stations and bring to an end lone and unsafe
working;
5. To see an overall reduction in crime;
6. Supporting youth services and education.
• Policy: To increase the numbers of police officers employed by the
Metropolitan Police Service and British Transport Police.
• Research: In 2010, the Met had 33,260 officers (plus 3,125 specials) but by
March 2018 that had reduced to 30,390 (2,246 specials). Figures do not
include PCSOs.58 Figures produced by the Mayor in December 2018 indicated
that in 2018 there were 29,654 police officers.59
The Mayor’s City Hall blog, “Police numbers in London at lowest level per
head in 20 years” published online on 4th July 2018 described the cuts that
have taken place to the MPS:
“At a time when violent crime is rising across the country, chronic
underfunding has hit the Metropolitan Police hard, with the amount
spent on policing per person falling 20 per cent in London between
2013 and 2017, compared to an average drop of 6 per cent across the
country.
The Met has already been forced to make more than £700 million in
58
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Service
59
“Mayor warns widening police funding gap risks”, published 3rd December 2018 and available at:
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-warns-widening-police-funding-gap-risks
23 | P a g ecuts since 2010 and must cut a further £325 million by 2021.”60
According to the BBC, the Home Office report a loss in England and Wales of
20,564 police officers between March 2010 and March 2019 (2,932 from the
Met alone).61
Boris Johnson, since becoming Prime Minister in July 2019, has announced a
commitment to recruit 20,000 police officers in the next three years but at
this stage there is no detail on how numbers will be allocated to police
forces, how training, etc, will work and whether the number is sufficient to
meet the current demands.
By law, since 2012 the Mayor of London has led the Mayor’s Office for
Policing and Crime (MOPAC). Whilst the Mayor can’t appoint or dismiss the
Commissioner of the MPS, he/she has to:
“produce a plan that explains how the police, community safety
partners and other criminal justice agencies will work together to
reduce crime. The Police and Crime Plan reflects the Mayor’s
manifesto and priorities for making London a safer city for all
Londoners and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) is
the strategic oversight body tasked with devising the Police and
Crime Plan and ensuring that it is delivered over four years.”62
76% of funding for police in London comes from the Home Office and the
remainder from the police element of the Council Tax precept. The limit of
the precept is set by the government and is a tax paid by the people of
London.63
It is also the case that the MPS incurs significant additional costs because of
its responsibility to police the capital. The Met spends some £346m a year
on this work, which includes diplomatic protection, and policing major
events such as protests, major football matches and state visits. However,
the Home Office under funds by £172m a year the National and International
Capital Cities (NICC) Grant which is supposed to pay for this work. It should
be noted that a Home Office review panel thought the MPS should receive
£281m for its capital city work.64
60
Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/police-numbers-london-lowest-level-head-20-years
61
See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49123319
62
See: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac/about-mayors-
office-policing-and-crime-mopac/mayor-mopac
63
See article in Note 30
64
See article in Note 30
24 | P a g eThe outcome of the above is that it would appear that whilst the Mayor and
his team have to put a policing strategy together, they have limited ability
to actually fund their aspirations. On this basis, cuts to police numbers and
underfunding for capital city duties by central government, combined with
swingeing cuts to youth services, have all undermined a lot of what can be
achieved and thus lead to situations like that of rising knife crime.
British Transport Police is the national railway police force that operates
across Britain and is responsible to the Department for Transport rather
than the Home Office. It is primarily funded by the railway industry and not
from the public purse. Despite this, however, it was affected by the
austerity cuts and had to make a 6% (£16.8m) cut to its budget for the
period 2011-2015.65 This change was on top of a 7% reduction resulting from
savings from restructuring project in the same period. Part of the change in
2014 was the reduction from seven policing division to three which means
that B Division covers East, South of England and Transport for London.
Policing for the London Underground network is funded by an independent
funding agreement and not under a Police Services Agreement (which
operates with Train Operating Companies and Network Rail). The BTP
Authority negotiates policing requirements for the London Underground and
charges Transport for London (TfL) at full cost (£47m in 2018-19).66
• Policy: Adopt a Vision Zero approach to assaults and violence against
staff and passengers on all TfL sponsored services.
• Research: Levels of physical and non-physical assaults on staff in TfL have
been consistently high for some time. Figures for five quarters, published by
TfL67 in September 2019, show the levels of physical and non-physical
assaults that staff have had to endure as they go about their daily work:
65
Page 4 of HMIC’s British Transport Police’s response to the funding challenge” published January 2014 and
available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332065/
btp-response-to-the-funding-challenge.pdf
66
See Page 11, House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number CBP 3119, 14 May 2019 “British Transport
Police (BTP) available to download from:
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03119
67
See (printed) Page 82 in (Public Pack) Agenda Document for Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources
Panel, 04/09/2019 at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/sshrp-4-september-2019-agenda-and-papers.pdf
25 | P a g eQuarter Q1 2018/19 Q2 2018/19 Q3 2018/19 Q4 2018/19 Q1 2019/20
Physical 309 324 348 403 369
assault
Non 753 773 691 941 715
physical
assault
Total 1062 1097 1039 1344 1084
Note: figures include TfL employees and those of TfL’s suppliers
In addition, in Q1 2019/20, the police recorded the following public order
offences against TfL staff68
London Underground 292
Bus / Victoria Coach Station 153
non TfL staff
London Overground / DLR / 132
TfL Rail / Trams
Bus / Victoria Coach Station 44
TfL staff
As if violence wasn’t enough, it should be noted that, shockingly, the police
report that 19% of these crimes were deemed to be hate crimes, with racial
hatred accounting for most (80%) of them!
Following an initiative by the trade unions, TfL has set up a Workforce
Violence and Aggression (WVA) strategy which TSSA is seeking to extend to
cover a wider remit and reach out across the various modes of transport in
London, including buses and train operating companies. At the very least,
TSSA’s view is that such a strategy should include the TfL Sponsored
Services, such as trams, DLR, etc, as well as London Overground which TfL
operates as a concession run by Arriva Rail London (ARL), something the
union has also taken up directly with ARL. Part of the strategy has to be the
establishment of an accountability board for all transport services in
London.
Our demand is to see violence against staff eradicated completely with a
target date set to fulfil this objective. One option is to see violence against
staff included in the objectives and targets of Vision Zero, the Mayor’s
initiative to reduce the number of accidents and deaths on the roads and
transport in London to zero by 2040.
TSSA also propose the establishment of a pan-London, pan-modal transport
68
See Page 84 in (Public Pack) Agenda Document for Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources Panel,
04/09/2019 at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/sshrp-4-september-2019-agenda-and-papers.pdf
26 | P a g esafety and security forum that enables initiatives that affect workforce and
passengers to be coordinated. This would:
• bring together TfL, London Overground, bus operating companies,
train companies and other operators - plus police and security
services, and other key stakeholders (eg, representatives from
boroughs);
• develop a strategic approach to safety and security on transport in
London;
• have a focus on the safety of transport workers as well as the
travelling public.
• Policy: Ensure adequate staffing of Overground stations and bring to an
end lone and unsafe working.
The assumption should be a minimum of two workers on Overground
stations, only to be varied where there’s a specific reason to do so. This has
previously been the Mayor’s commitment69 but is being undermined by
Arriva Rail London as they seek to make cuts to staffing without regard to
safety of passengers or the lone working of staff.
• Policy: To tackle knife crime
Research: For every 100,000 people in the capital, there were 169 knife
offences in the financial year 2018-19.70 In 2018, there were 132 homicides,
73 involving a knife.
Causes of the rise in violence has been attributed to a variety of factors
including:
- the rise in county lines drugs gangs operating out of London;
- gang warfare in London as different groups try to control the drugs
market;
- an increased demand for Class A drugs, especially amongst the
better off;
- government cuts to police numbers and resources
- steep decline in the use of stop and search powers
- cuts to funding for youth services and education
- anecdotal evidence that more people are carrying knives to defend
themselves whilst others do so out of growing confidence they won’t
69
See: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-tfl-to-keep-overground-ticket-offices-open-
0
70
See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42749089
27 | P a g ebe stopped;
- poverty, overcrowding and a lack of a future meaning young people
turn to gang lifestyles for money and identity.
One of the ways to reduce knife crime is through supporting youth services
and education.
• Policy: Supporting youth services and education
Research: In March 2019 Ofsted published a report71 under the title of
“Knife crime: safeguarding children and young people in education.” In her
commentary to the report when it was published, Amanda Speilman, Ofsted
Chief Inspector, said:
“This study did not set out to prove or disprove whether exclusions
lead to knife crime – a task that is beyond the realm of the possible.
There is evidence that points to a correlation between the 2, but of
course this does not prove causation. It seems just as likely that
exclusions and knife crime are 2 symptoms of the same underlying
problems, exacerbated by cuts to local authority children’s
services…
Spending per head on early help and preventative services has fallen
by over 60% in real terms between financial years 2009 to 2010 and
2016 to 2017. Some of the funding that is available is only short
term. Schools simply do not have the ability to counter the deep-
seated societal problems behind the rise in knife crime.” 72
In their report, Ofsted is calling for a multi-agency approach that would
involve information sharing between schools, local authorities, police as
well as education about staying safe.
On the subject of cuts to funding for youth services, the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime reported that the average council has
cut real-terms spending on youth services by 40% over the past three years,
with some reducing their spending by 91%.73 This has meant a 51% drop in
the overall number of youth centres supported by English local authorities
71
Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785055/
Knife_crime_safeguarding_children_and_young_people_110319.pdf
72
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmci-commentary-on-knife-crime
73
See: https://www.localgov.co.uk/Cuts-to-youth-services-factor-in-rise-of-knife-crime,-MPs-say/47353
28 | P a g eYou can also read
