Off the rails
October 29, 2003
The news that Network Rail had finally lost patience with the private maintenance companies and taken the work back in house was long overdue. Absolutely and predictably on cue the companies started making threats over legal action that they would take to protect their business.
This latest twist in the rail debate shows just how wrong privatisation was in the first place and what a huge mistake was made by the newly elected Labour Government in not taking the whole network, including the train operating companies into public ownership in 1997.
Railtrack was stuffed with money by the Government and its perpetual failure to deliver a good service or be more than a conduit for the profits of the Train Operating Companies was finally removed from the scene and replaced by Network Rail. So far so good.
Network Rail inherited a system driven and led by finance interests, when engineers and rail experts were needed.
Having taken some of the maintenance work back in house, it now plans to take the whole lot under its wing. Not before time the 18,500 rail workers that are employed by the myriad of maintenance companies deserve decent, secure working conditions.
The money made out of privatisation is stupendous. British Rail was always presented as a loss making public service and the Tory privatisation was meant to reverse that.
The reality was that the publicly owned railways were starved of investment and support and encouraged to sell assets to survive. Under-valued the newly established Railtrack set about selling assets in a big way, for the benefit of shareholders. Meanwhile the supposedly privatised Train Operating Companies were, in reality, contractors on a huge profit margin. Guaranteed income, even if they did not run trains due to industrial action, huge profits have been made.
The establishment of maintenance companies has made huge pickings. Carillion – one of the first in the queue to threaten legal action for the loss of its Network Rail contract – has an interesting history. It was purchased from the Government in 1996 for a mere £20 million and is now valued at £100 million. All of its business has been publicly underwritten and the work it has carried out has been publicly financed. Far from seeking compensation, the companies should be paying us for the profits they have made.
The best known, Jarvis, has become the most unpopular, as Tory Mayoral candidate for London and now executive director Steve Norris will soon find out.
The result of ten years of privatised railways is that we have the highest subsidy of any rail system in Europe, and the largest profits being made all at the public expense.
Welcome as the decision is by Network Rail to do all maintenance work itself there is still an issue of accountability. When the Tories sold British Rail the public accountability was lost. Under Network Rail we are investing £3 billions every year in a private company with the directors appointed by the Government. It is a mantra of New Labour that it can never be proud of the public service ethic, instead it must wrap everything in a market mantra. It is high time that this company became more accountable to the public interest.
Londoners are once more facing disruption following the Northern Line crash at Camden Town and the suspension of the service. Ken Livingstone, our elected Mayor, cannot guarantee the safety of the tube system as he does not have complete control over it. The long running battle over the public-private partnership was first in favour of the Government plan; now private sector companies are supposed to be in charge of maintenance and upgrading of the lines. Lack of inspections and single management has to be dealt with. I support the RMT in its demand for a return to regular local inspections. They have shown more concern for safety than the finance led regimes in the rail maintenance industry.
I hope that the lessons of Railtrack and the sorry saga of money wasted on endless private contracts and consultants will not be visited on the London Underground, but so far it is a repeat performance. New Labour’s belief that the public are in favour of private sector solutions to transport needs is simply way off the mark.
If we are to succeed in moving traffic from roads to rail then investment is the key, as well as price and safety. In reality train travel is the safest form of transport there is, as well as the least polluting and the most efficient use of energy. However it does need large levels of investment and public funding in order to be the cheapest and most accountable. Having given approval to Crossrail it now seems the Government is having cold feet because of a possible lack of private sector interest - it would be cheaper and more efficient if it was public money in the first place.
Last week I attended a lobby of Parliament of London Bus workers who were concerned at the prospect of cuts in the central Government subsidy for the service in 2005. Buses in London are a success story with ridership up by twenty per cent and dozens of new routes and new vehicles. Whilst the services are mostly franchised out the Mayor Ken Livingstone has established East Thames Buses as a public company and shown what imagination and initiative can do. The unholy alliance of the Liberal Democrats and the Evening Standard in attacking Ken because of the level of bus subsidy is bizarre – do they want gridlock or real public access?
Outside London the shroud of the Tory years has never been lifted from the bus industry – totally de-regulated and privatised the ridership levels have hardly grown and in some cases sunk as car user rates are rising.
The lesson of all the transport stories of the past week must surely be that the Tory privatisation has cost us all dearly. Now is the time to go with the public mood and return to the principles of a publicly owned and accountable system.
Polisario congress
October 22, 2003
In 1884 the worlds’ superpowers met in Berlin to carve up Africa, the Balkans and any other part of the world that was ripe for European colonialism. They drew straight lines on maps colonies were born, and indigenous peoples were given new masters.
Until that time the area of the Sahara, south of the Kingdom of Morocco, was inhabited by nomadic peoples who lived a subsistence based life. Unbeknownst to them, they became the subjects of Spain and were residents of the Spanish. Their role was to work in the phosphate mines and provide troops for the Spanish army.
Nothing the Congress of Berlin decided lasted as long as the imperial masters thought; by 1957 the independence of Ghana showed the way forward for Africa, and all of Africa’s colonies achieved their independence by the end of the twentieth century. That is, all bar one.
Spain eventually withdrew from the Western Sahara in 1974 and as a result the area was divided between Mauritania and Morocco. The people were not consulted, and the Liberation Movement, Polisario, formed in 1973, vowed to carry on the fight for independence.
The Moroccan invasion was swift and brutal and whilst Mauritania later withdrew its claim and recognised the Polisario, Morocco did not.
King Hassan led the invasion, mobilised the army and settlers moved in. In a dramatic move, the Polisario organised a mass evacuation of its people to the relative safety of neighbouring Algeria. They arrived in their tens of thousands in 1975 to live on arid, infertile land with only brackish water to sustain themselves. Thus their refugee camps were founded and are there to this day – a temporary home to over 100,000 people relying on Algerian and UN organised support.
The Polisario organised their army and fought for their land, the right of return and of free choice. Napalm and modern weapons supplied by America and France were used to try and defeat the Polisario and assert Morocco’s “right” to the desert.
Eventually the UN brokered a ceasefire in 1991 and intended that a referendum should be held of the people ordinarily resident in the territory in 1974 and their families. Years of wrangling by Morocco on the lists of names was eventually resolved by the UN through its mission, MINURSO. But still no referendum was held and still no return to the whole of the territory was permitted.
In order to assert its claim, Morocco constructed a sand wall over 1000kms in length, with minefields alongside, a few hundred kilometres west of the Algerian border.
For years the Polisario have organised a diplomatic initiative to gather support for their cause, the freedom of Africa’s last colony. This has been very successful with recognition of the Saharwi Arab Republic by the Organisation of African Unity (now African Union) and support by many groups in Western Europe.
The United Nations appointed James Baker to be the Secretary General’s representative on this matter. After several years of protracted discussion he produced various forms of the Baker plan; the latest of which offers autonomy within Morocco for five years, after which a referendum would be held on the future form of Government and independence. Initially rejected by Polisario, the leadership have now supported this, subject to heavy conditions. Morocco, having claimed support for autonomy all along, has now rejected it. Big power politics, the prospects of oil alongside the known phosphate reserves and an abundance of fish on the Atlantic coast have all played their part in this turn of events.
Last week I reflected on all this as I joined 150 other international observers for the journey to the 11th Polisario Congress. Unlike any other, it was held in the liberated territories.
A charter flight took us from Madrid to Tindouf via Oran. Arriving in the camps well after midnight we were welcomed and well treated. However, the living conditions for the people are terrible: summer temperatures are 55+ degrees Celsius, and winter nights almost freezing in this desolate area.
The camps have expanded and a huge effort placed on education and womens’ development; but since the objective is of the right to return there is no air of permanence.
The following morning we were all up and ready at 5.30am for the very long drive by jeep to the Congress. Seven dusty and very bumpy hours later we arrived at the former Spanish fort of Tfariti; the remaining buildings have been taken over by the Polisario and used as a military base; all around were destroyed buildings as the Moroccan army had unsuccessfully tried to bomb the Polisario out of this last part of their territory.
The Congress was almost surreal; the first ever held in the liberated territories, only about 100kms from the Moroccan Wall and several hundred kilometres from anywhere.
The President made a lengthy speech, outlining the struggle over 25 years and the support from Algeria without which little could have been achieved, and the practical help from Cuba and other friends who have recognised his Government and state. The international delegates were well received. For us it was an act of solidarity; for the Saharwi people, refugee camps and poverty have become a way of life.
I addressed the Congress and expressed my view; the UN exists for many reasons but a crucial one is to assist the decolonisation process. Its Member States have failed to condemn Morocco’s illegal occupation. Member States have supplied arms and support to Morocco, and the EU has happily negotiated favourable trade arrangements despite this illegal occupation. Twenty eight years in camps is too long; the people have the right to return.
In reality, justice for the Saharwi rests with themselves and the rest of the world. European Governments that supply arms to Morocco knowing they are for use against the people of the Western Sahara should cease this trade. International pressure can force a settlement and the free vote promised in the 1991 ceasefire agreement.
A small group of us made a three hour journey to the Moroccan wall, but darkness overcame us so we made do with tea with a nomadic camel herder. It is harder to imagine anything more insane than a wall bristling with machine guns and land mines to keep out the people who have successfully and sustainably made a living from this land from time immemorial. The lure of minerals and riches, sustained by the nationalism of the Moroccan Government have for too long denied the people of Africa’s last colony their right to their independence.
Note: Jeremy Corbyn was an observer at the 11th Polisario Congress from the 12th to 14th of October.
The Western Sahara Campaign can be contacted at Oxford Chambers, Oxford Place, Leeds LS1 3AX 0113 245 4786 and wsc@gn.apc.org.
Chagos
October 18, 2003
(From the Labour Left Briefing)
In the 1960’s Harold Wilson made an agreement with the USA that they could have Diego Garcia – a pristine and idyllic island in the Indian Ocean – as a base to pursue their cold war strategies and supply forces in Vietnam. This was done in secret and with no consultation with the people who matter most, namely those people who lived there. Revealed Foreign Office Documents show the arrogance of officialdom to these “native” peoples. The Americans insisted the islands be de-populated and later extended this to the rest of the Chagos Archipelago several hundred miles away.
The British duly obliged, removed the population and literally dumped them on the quayside in Port Louis, Mauritius and a smaller number in the Seychelles. Thus a sustainable lifestyle of coconut growing and inshore fishing was replaced by US bombers and nuclear powered submarines. The Community did not disappear; they remained together in sadness and poverty and campaigned for justice.
This campaign has lasted for over twenty five years and reached a new milestone in the High Court in October. Initially the Chagosian Community was paid some insufficient compensation in the 1980’s, which was then raised slightly in what British officials called a full and final settlement the islanders continued to live in poverty. With their money mostly eaten up by land dealers, they were forced to live in self built corrugated iron sheds and suffer terrible rates of unemployment and misery.
The dream of returning home became a near possibility when the High Court ruled in 2000 that they could return to the Islands. Another step forward was achieved in 2001 when an amendment to the British Overseas Territories Bill supported by Tam Dalyell and myself granted them British citizenship.
I visited Mauritius in 2002 and witnessed for myself the sheer misery and poverty of the community, and the sense that they had been rejected. Meanwhile their former island home was being used to bomb the people of Afghanistan.
The British Government offered a visit to the islands by a group of islanders as part of a feasibility study and even chartered a ship for this purpose. Unfortunately negotiations broke down when the Foreign Office told us that there were no circumstances under which any islanders could visit Diego Garcia, because the US would not allow it.
In the most recent case, an application for personal injury and loss by the islanders was rejected by the High Court after weeks of evidence. I was in the Court for some of the proceedings and the judgement. The ironies could not be more complete. Thirty years of chicanery and dishonesty by the US and Britain, a people thrown off their islands into poverty and a delegation of forty or so of the 7000 people sitting in expectancy of justice. Their hopes were dashed again as Judge Ousely delivered a withering judgement saying the islanders had already been compensated. Smirking lawyers from the Treasury barely managed to contain themselves as devastation and depression again spread amongst the poor islanders. However an appeal is being considered and the political campaign goes on.
I cannot but reflect on the gross immorality – a base for mass bombardment and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq has greater priority than people and the British Governments of the past thirty years have been too mean minded to ensure they are able to live a reasonable life. Those who, quite legally come to Britain, have been told that they are not normally resident therefore must wait six months to apply for income support.
Housing
October 17, 2003
(From the Highbury and Islington Express)
On Saturday October 4th tenants and leaseholders from Islington properties were in Union Chapel to discuss the future of Council Housing in the Borough. Speakers were there from the Tenants Federation (FITA), UNISON, The office of Deputy Prime Minister who are responsible for Housing Policy and Cllr Richard Greening on behalf of the Labour Councillors. The Housing Department and Liberal Democrat administration, despite being sent an invitation in July, failed to send anyone to speak on their behalf.
The issue that the meeting grappled with was the problem of the administration of Council Estates and the Council’s policy of setting up and Arms Length Management Organisation. This devise is intended to be a partnership of tenants, residents and the Council and will borrow money to run the Housing service. There was very strong opposition to this with vital concerns about democracy and accountability being expressed. Ultimately it was seen as a step towards privatisation. Indeed a shadow board has already been established.
After two hours of discussion the meeting voted that all tenants and leaseholders should be allowed to vote freely on this plan in a ballot. Strangely the Council, having declined to attend a meeting to explain their plan, having established the Shadow |Board and allocated money for this process are not planning a ballot, relying instead on some form of opinion polling to tell the Government of its plans and ask for their approval.
At the very least the Council should tell all tenants exactly what the plans are, encourage an informed discussion and then allow tenants to vote. To not even attend a meeting run by Islington’s Tenants and a major Union and deny a vote shows a lack of respect for the democratic process by the Council.
Our problem in Islington is that the Government has put large amounts of money into the refurbishment of estates - new roofs, windows and estate surroundings being improved are all thanks to central Government spending, something that the Council seems to have difficulty acknowledging.
But for all this there is a huge housing problem in the Borough. With overcrowded flats occupied by families of four and more in one bedroom accommodation, many in hostels and bed and breakfasts and with the severe problems of the Packington Estate the prospects of anyone being re-housed are very slim indeed.
My weekly Advice Bureau is full of the victims of this process; families deeply stressed by over-crowding and children under achieving in school. A school student with nowhere to do their homework in the crucial GCSE years and trying to study for A levels must be at a disadvantage. Whilst I do accept that there is a problem in finding enough new development sites in London to meet all the housing needs; it appears that in our Borough there is barely any strategy at all for increasing the Council stock, or enabling Housing Associations to expand to build.
Under current planning rules any new development under fifteen units does not have to include even the modest target of twenty five per cent of properties being for “social” needs. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is absolutely right to want a change that will ensure fifty per cent of all new developments are for people in housing need. Looking through local planning applications it is clear that developers are well aware of where money can be made, not of their social responsibilities. Most small developments all come in with fourteen units.
In Islington the problem is exacerbated by the Liberal Democrat’s lack of any vision of housing improvements and opportunities, hence the sale of any building they can get their hands on. I have, after months of asking, finally been sent a list of the properties sold to the Derwent Property group which included Council owned street properties that would have made perfect homes for desperate families, and any vacant building that could have been converted. Additionally of course was the callous sale of Community Centres including the highly successful Factory Centre in Matthias Road.
In London we need a real strategy for meeting the housing needs of those who cannot even consider buying or earn too little to be able to rent privately. Council Housing has provided decent housing for millions ever since its inception. Locally one looks at the foresight that went into Hillside Estate, Highlands and the innovative older properties in Finsbury. During previous housing crises in London we had a strategic approach by both local councils and Government.
Now, when we need it most there is no local strategy, the London Mayor needs more powers to help and whilst I welcome and support the huge Government money into improvements and repairs I deeply regret the lack of support for Council housing and investment in new council buildings.
A society that condemns so many children and families to live in overcrowded conditions must be creating problems for itself. In the 1970’s we were, as a country, building 100,000 new council houses every year, this dropped to about 30,000 per year in the 1990’s and is now at a record low of around 20,000 per year for “affordable” rent. We need to, and can, do much better. We should start with a recognition of the value of Council Housing, affordable and accountable and that if we don’t expand the stock our Borough becomes a more divided and unhappy place. I hope the Council and the Government Office for London will do something.
Bush not welcome
October 1, 2003
(For Guardian Unlimited)
This week President Bush arrives accompanied by a massive entourage of advisers and security staff, and London will be disrupted more for this, than for any other state visit.
Meanwhile the Stop the War Coalition have organised a whole series of meetings, film shows, debates and demonstrations to enable the ordinary public to express their feelings.
The contrast could not be greater: of a President being feted (at a cost of £4 million) and not answering any questions or debating anything, whilst the peace movement have had to argue every inch of the way for the right to hold marches and demonstrations. As with legal history since 2001 we have to constantly assert our right to be heard against those who would silence us.
The strange question is why Bush is coming at all? And whose idea was it to invite him.
No US President has ever had a state visit before, only as head of Government, and as a first term controversially appointed Head of State he should hardly be the first choice.
Bush, and Blair, are defined politically by the Iraq War. It is clear that Bush needs Blair so that he can claim some sort of international support for his lawless activities, his open contempt for the United Nations, and for the legal processes relating to the incarceration of prisoners.
Quite what calculation leads Blair to need Bush so much is less obvious.
After 9/11 there was understandable shock around the world; a short period of taking stock, and then Bush pronounced a war of retribution against Afghanistan, followed by the Axis of Evil speech.
Blair’s reaction was similar to most other European heads of Government initially, but then it went much further.
As the build up to the Iraq war followed, Bush used the laid back arrogant assumptions that he could do what he liked. After all, he is Commander in Chief and in international affairs, unlike national, he has a pretty free hand.
Blair on the other hand has a much tighter position, and has to answer questions at least once a week and thus provide some rational explanation for the build up to Iraq. This has been his undoing as even his most ardent supporters have had trouble following the shifting sands of WMD’s, missiles, imminent threats, Al Quaeda links and re-interpretations of history.
Tony Blair got his vote in March, and lost his credibility in foreign policy at the same time. With perhaps 10,000 Iraqis dead, US soldiers dying at an alarming rate, and international organisations and “allies” pulling out fast, one asks the question: where we are now going?
Far from making the world a safer place, Bush has learnt no lessons from history, appears incapable of understanding any cultural diversity in the world, and thinks crony capitalism is synonymous with democracy.
On Sunday night I watched Born on the 4th of July in the company of Ron Kovic, its hero. The story is of a journey from unquestioning patriotism and military strength, via dead children in Vietnamese villages, horrific injuries, and contemptible treatment of Vietnam veterans to an indefatigable peace campaigner.
Bush looks and sounds more like Nixon did in the 1970s, as the US gears up to oppose him. This visit will be seen as a strange mistake – it is now of no benefit to Blair or Bush but has been a huge boost to the Trans Atlantic peace movement.
Asylum
October 1, 2003
(From the Socialist Campaign Group)
The new session of Parliament will see yet another attack on asylum seekers and their rights. This time the Home Office is planning to restrict the legal process to one single appeal, further removal of benefit rights for those whose initial application has been rejected and a sinister “right” of the Asylum Regulator to enter Solicitor’s offices to search for documents.
This new turn of the ratchet against asylum seekers is a product of the popular press rhetoric against asylum seekers. Blair and Blunkett claim that by being tough on asylum seekers the far right BNP can be defeated.
The reality is that the more the right wing press scream hysterically about asylum seekers the greater the danger and misery becomes for desperate and poor families. Instead of a “national debate” about asylum we should be debating the deaths of desperate people in the Mediterranean as they try to enter fortress Europe and the level of racist attacks on the streets of British cities. We should also be looking at the poverty of asylum seeking families and the desperate housing conditions that many are condemned to live in.
We have large numbers in detention; the Yarlswood Fire showed just how awful and dangerous the conditions are for many detainees. The right wing popular press seem incapable of ever debating the causes of asylum. The victims of repressive regimes and poverty seek safety in the belief that the 1951 Geneva Convention offers them protection and now find that they become victims of political hysteria.
Already sixty human rights and justice organisations including Amnesty International and the Medical Campaign for the Victims of Torture have published a joint statement condemning the new Home Office plans that restrict the right to justice. The new plans will deny justice to desperate people. David Blunkett should understand that his apparently endless appeasement of the right wing campaign will only make things worse for some of the most desperate people in our society.
Between a rock and a hard place
October 1, 2003
In October the Polisario Front, formed thirty years ago to liberate the Western Sahara held its 11th Congress. For the first time it was in the eastern part of the Territory in “liberated” Western Sahara only 100 kms from the Sand Wall Morocco has constructed. The Congress has to face some very harsh realities.
In 1974 Spain left the colony it was awarded at the Congress of Berlin in 1884; a year later Morocco invaded and occupied the territory and the Saharwi were expelled to refugee camps in southern Algeria. The war dragged on with Morocco using Napalm and Phosphor bombs against the forces of the Polisario. A UN ceasefire finally agreed 1991 should have resulted in a referendum on the future according to the wishes of those originally resident and their families. Still not held the UN representative, James Baker, has come up with a new plan. Autonomy under Morocco and a referendum in five years, with all those resident at that time being able to vote.
With huge reservations the Polisario leadership have accepted this only to have Morocco reject it. The riches of oil and phosphates and the abundance of fish are the biggest reason as well as a nationalist appeal by the new King.
Britain, along with some other European countries has supplied arms to Morocco and supported the Baker initiative, when we should have been supporting the people of the desert.
As we bumped back through the desert to the arid and infertile refugee camps where 100,000 people have lived for nearly three decades on UN donated food and supplies I could only reflect on the obscenity of big power politics.
