Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR BOB
CROW, MR
TONY DONAGHEY,
MR GERRY
DOHERTY AND
MR MIKE
KATZ
8 DECEMBER 2004
Q20 Mr Donohoe: Kings Cross Thames Link
is undergoing major engineering work, I think you are aware of
that, and it is going to be going on until March 2005. That is
putting a lot more pressure on to Kings Cross Underground. What
specifically is being done to control that crowd control that
has come about? Who is undertaking that crowd control?
Mr Crow: CTRL, Mr Donohue. They
are called road marshals, they are actually on the road, and what
the problem is in the morning time—because obviously you
can stop people coming into Kings Cross Station from Kings Cross
Thames Link, Kings Cross Mainline, but what you cannot stop is
people coming from the tube out of the station, and what is happening,
because it is like a warren's den down there, at the moment in
time, with different tunnels, there are problems now with people
leaving Kings Cross Station to get up the temporary outlet, and
there are queues now must be 200 yards long at 8 o'clock to 9
o'clock in the morning for people to get down.
Q21 Mr Donohoe: Have you made representations
about that because that is a fairly significant safety problem,
and in a station that had a major fire a number of years ago and
one would have presumed that would be something that would be
taken into account?
Mr Crow: The Health and Safety
reps of both RMT and TSSA have raised these under risk assessments,
which are done. But at the end of the day I would point out, Mr
Donohoe, that management tell us that when it comes to the bottom
line management are responsible for safety, and as soon as we
threaten to take any kind of industrial action we are condemned
for taking action. But by the same token, what are we expected
to do? All we can is to make representations. At the end of the
day management are responsible for safety, not the Trade Unions.
Our job at the end of the day is to make management have a safe
system at work and it is up to the management to implement it.
Q22 Chairman: Is it true, Mr Doherty,
that the Infraco safety cases are contractual but not statutory?
Mr Doherty: It is, yes. One of
the difficulties we have, Madam, is that some changes to the safety
case seem to be made without any reference whatsoever to staff
representatives. It is after the case that we are informed. So
the consultation, as far as we are concerned, is a sham; it is
information rather than consultation.
Q23 Chairman: Can you point to a particular
change that has posed some kind of danger?
Mr Doherty: I could not, but I
will find out and write to you on that.
Q24 Chairman: Do you think that if I
were to ask you to give me a supplementary note you could find
examples?
Mr Doherty: Yes.
Q25 Chairman: You would do that for me?
Mr Doherty: Yes, I will.
Chairman: Mr Stringer.
Q26 Mr Stringer: Is enough being done
to protect people working on the Underground from attacks by the
public and customers?
Mr Crow: No, I do not think so
at all. What normally happens, Mr Stringer, take for instance
today, for the third day there has been a fault on the radios
on the Northern Line and we have just got off the train now and
the Circle Line eastbound has been completely shut down, and there
are problems on the Bakerloo Line, and the first thing that people
normally get is that they see a member of staff and they take
out their frustrations on that member of staff. What we find is
that staff are left in isolated areas, especially in the outlying
stations; and secondly, the British Transport Police fail in their
response rate to get to these incidents and to prosecute.
Q27 Mr Stringer: Mr Doherty?
Mr Doherty: The incidences of
assaults on staff, whether they are verbal or physical assaults
is increasing on both the Underground and on the Mainline Rail.
You may well say that there are more people using the services
and therefore everything would increase, but our view is that
the duty of care that London Underground has is something where
we question what priority they give to it. As Bob has said, the
frontline staff are the ones who face the frustrations whenever
anything goes wrong. I am a commuter myself and I see the abuse
that staff have to take. One of the issues that we have raised
constantly with both Mainline Rail and with London Underground
is that it is the poor person at the frontline who takes all of
this—you never see any managers who are willing to stand
in front of the passengers and take the brunt of those frustrations.
We would want to see much more management interface with passengers
when things go wrong.
Q28 Mr Stringer: You say that assaults
are increasing; do you have hard figures on that?
Mr Doherty: Yes.
Q29 Mr Stringer: And you can supply them?
Mr Doherty: Yes.[1]
Q30 Mr Stringer: London Underground took
an initiative in East London with the British Transport Police
in order to cut crime and they claim that assaults were reduced
by a third and that vandalism was reduced. Are you aware of that
operation?
Mr Crow: What we are aware of,
they set up a new police station at West Ham and also they have
these helicopters going into the sky to see about people getting
on to the railway banks and one thing and another. They may well
have decreased staff assaults in East London but the problem is
that they have a brand new police control centre at West Ham,
and on top of that all the rest of London Underground do not get
the same service that that part of East London does because of
the new control centre.
Q31 Mr Stringer: So East London is atypical?
Mr Crow: We welcome it, but it
just shows that where the resources have gone into one particular
area staff assaults have gone down. What we want is the same resources
across the rest of London Underground trains.
Q32 Mr Stringer: You said at the beginning,
and I was not surprised that you were against the PPP and that
you would like to see the position reversed, but given that it
is there, what in terms of the operation of the PPP has been better
than you expected and what has been worse that you expected?
Mr Crow: I am not being cynical,
but I cannot see any difference. All I can see is they have changed
the name from London Underground to an Infraco, and a few individuals
are making a few quid out of it where before it went back into
the coffers of London Underground.
Mr Doherty: What has changed is,
there are three standards that the Infracos are judged by. One
is the capacity, which has not changed to a discernible effect;
one is the day-to-day availability, which has not changed; and
one is ambience, and I assume by ambience they mean that stations
are cleaner and there is a brighter travelling environment for
the public. One has to question if that is what the public actually
wants; do they want stand about in stations with no graffiti but
the trains taking longer to arrive? I would suggest that the priority
should be to have an efficient and fast service, and that is what
Londoners want. There is no discernible effect that the PPP has
improved that, and indeed some of the contracts and some of the
targets, the timescales are mind boggling—2025 before we
actually get things back to a decent standard. To have a private
contractor that says it will take 20 odd years to improve the
underground in the City of London is mind-boggling.
Q33 Mr Stringer: I do not want to put
words into anybody's mouth but when you say that you cannot see
a difference, can we imply from that that the different partners
are working more closely together?
Mr Crow: We have not got the figures,
but I am sure the Mayor of London can provide the figures. The
amount of delays there are now on Monday mornings. For instance,
the engineering work being done at weekends is now over spilling
onto a Monday morning, and that is causing delays for passengers
to get to work, causing delay to commerce and industry, and we
believe it is being done on purpose because it is cheaper to pay
a fine if the trains are delayed on a Monday morning rather than
getting the work completed at the weekend.
Q34 Mr Stringer: So do you think that
different partners are working closer together or not?
Mr Crow: I cannot see the partnerships
working together at all.
Mr Katz: As we have already said,
Mr Stringer, there is now an artificial divide certainly on the
ground between members of the Health and Safety representatives
of the Infracos and the members of the Health and Safety representatives
of London Underground and that makes an ongoing dialogue over
issues of safety and risk assessment, whether to do with staff
or the state of stations or track or stock, makes it very difficult
for there to be the kind of coordination there naturally would
be under a unified structure, and that is a clear difference that
PPP has brought about.
Q35 Mr Stringer: It is quite clear that
you do not like that PPP and wish it away, but if it is not going
to happen do you have any suggestions about how it could be improved
in the short term? How could the different bodies within the PPP
work more effectively together?
Mr Crow: As you say, Mr Stringer,
we would like PPP to come back under the Mayor's control, but
a better solution than it is now is to have one Infraco.
Q36 Chairman: A little louder, Mr Crow,
please, and I never thought I would hear myself say that to you!
Mr Crow: Sorry, I missed that!
Q37 Chairman: Louder, Mr Crow, louder.
Mr Crow: I think the fact is to
have one Infraco rather than three Infracos because you have Metronet,
which is one company that operates two infrastructure companies,
and Tube Lines, and to have one would be far better because you
would have one engineering company to deal with, rather than interfaces.
It is not directly the privatised company that we deal with; we
are not saying here that because they are privatised they are
completely bad, only nothing but bad comes out of the building
of them; but what we are saying is it is the interfaces and different
communications from different companies that cause the problems.
Q38 Mr Stringer: Mr Doherty, do you agree
with Mr Crow?
Mr Doherty: One has to question
how companies that are not improving performance to any measurable
performance effect can end up being fined a total of £32
million for not reaching targets, but in the same hand get £12
million in bonuses for improved performance. So obviously if there
is something that has to be done I think the contracts have to
be looked at. Are the contracts hard enough? Are the targets set
challenging enough? £93 million in the first year in profits
for the three Infracos is not chicken feed; there is money in
there to be made and are the targets stiff enough for it?
Q39 Mr Stringer: That is an interesting
point, Mr Doherty. Are those bonuses making industrial relations
worse between the Underground System? Is there a great deal of
resentment from ordinary employees about those bonuses?
Mr Crow: There is always a deal
of resentment because at the end of the day where is that £93
million coming from? It has to come from somewhere; it has to
come from fare paying passengers, squeezing the terms and conditions
of employees, of the taxpayer. That is where the money is coming
from. There is a great deal of resentment that money that should
be spent on improving the infrastructure is finding its way into
private pockets, because that is what is happening at the end
of the day.
Mr Katz: If I could just add,
Madam Chair, staff can see these systems, which are slightly ludicrous,
where on the one hand they have money taken off them because of
poor performance when it comes to punctuality and reliability,
but then they can have money given back to them and have the penalties
offset by concentrating on measures to improve ambience, and whilst
it is an important part of the equation it is certainly not the
be all and end all. It is certainly an issue that when the Infracos
have access, say, after one of the derailments, at White City,
they use their access period whilst White City was not working,
to spend money improving ambience, rather than making good the
repairs to get the service back up operating, because they realised
it was an opportunity to offset some of the penalties they would
be forfeit by the bonuses that they would make to improve ambience.
Mr Crow: Can I make a point on
Mr Stringer's point about resentment? What a person gets for their
contract is a matter between them and their individual employer.
But just to show you what is taking place with our members, for
instance Tube Lines, Tube Lines failed to reach their targets
in February, but the Chief Executive got £100,000 bonus and
in the same breath shut down the pension fund for the new entrants.
Is that fair? That leads to bitterness and resentment. People
see if you have done well the Chief Executive gets a bonus, that
is fine; but do we get a reward? And you would not think that
the pension fund would be shut down.
Chairman: Mrs Ellman.
1 Note by witness: Launching the British Transport
Police 2003-04 Annual Report a BTP press release of 24 August
2004 said; "Violent crime on London Underground rose by 22.1%,
an additional 415 crimes. Much of this is due to increased reporting
of staff assaults, which rose by 29%, an additional 239 crimes.
BTP has targeted staff assaults setting up a dedicated unit to
encourage reporting and London Underground has issued DNA kits
to staff for collecting evidence should they be spat at. Staff
assaults now represent over a third of all reported assaults". Back
| 
