We believe that rather than cut staff, London Underground and its parent company Transport for London should:

1. challenge the government's funding cut to TfL, and demand the guaranteed, decent level of public funding that such a crucial transport system requires
2. maintain or increase the level of station staffing and ticket office opening times; promote its own ticket-selling services rather than those of external outlets
3. undertake a major programme of making London Underground more accessible to disabled people and to communities that it does not currently serve
4. return all contracted-out areas of its work to London Underground - including cleaning, catering, ticket gate maintenance, advertising, infrastructure and fleet maintenance
5. curtail the over-inflated salaries and bonuses of its Commissioner, Directors and others
6. stop costly schemes designed to prepare for further job cuts, including driverless trains

These measures would remove the ‘need’ for job cuts and would vastly improve London Underground and hence benefit London and its environment, its economy and its employment rates.

In order to cost these proposals, we request from London Underground the information to which we are legally entitled, including:

1. full costings of the work done so far in preparing the current proposals, and projected future spending on this
2. full details, including financial details, of its arrangements with external bodies which sell its tickets
3. full details, including financial details, of all its contracts with other companies
4. full details of the remuneration of every employee paid over £100,000 last year
5. full details of its projected income (from all sources) and expenditure over the next ten years
6. full details of its expenditure on hospitality, ceremonial events and overseas visits
7. full details, including costings, of the work being undertaken in connection with the development of trains capable of operating without a driver

We note that the law on consultation regarding redundancy requires the employer to consult the union about avoiding the redundancies or reducing their number, and allows unions to put alternative proposals for avoiding redundancies. The law also requires consultation to engage with the reasons given for the redundancies, and allows unions to raise the issue of these justifications, including the economic context. LUL’s consultation must therefore begin with talks on whether these proposed cuts are necessary, in which this union will argue that they are not and will make the proposals above. We instruct the General Secretary to reply to the letter from LUL dated 25 November insisting that the consultation begin with these issues.

We further instruct the General Secretary to urgently obtain and place in front of us legal advice as to whether LUL’s invitation to staff to apply for voluntary severance during the period in which consultation is supposed to be taking place contravenes the legal requirement to conduct a genuine consultation.

London Transport Regional Council, branches and representatives to be advised.