Pressure is mounting on London’s Mayor to overhaul Transport for London‘s reliance on private contractors, as the RMT union accuses City Hall of allowing “corporate capture” of the capital’s transport network. In a renewed campaign, the union is calling for the full insourcing of cleaning staff across the Underground and wider TfL estate, arguing that low-paid workers are being squeezed by outsourcing giants while public money flows into corporate profits. The dispute exposes a widening fault line over who benefits from London’s transport system: the companies that run key services, or the workers and passengers who rely on them.
Corporate interests undermining accountability at Transport for London
Behind closed doors, outsourced cleaning giants exert a quiet but powerful influence over decision‑making, shaping contracts, timetables and workplace standards with minimal public scrutiny. While the Mayor publicly champions fairness and transparency,commercial partners lobby to protect profit margins,resisting demands for decent sick pay,pensions and secure hours for those who keep the network running. This imbalance of power weakens democratic oversight: workers’ voices are marginalised, board papers are redacted in the name of “commercial sensitivity”, and key performance data is filtered through corporate metrics rather than public‑interest benchmarks.
The result is a culture where short‑term cost savings trump long‑term service quality and staff welfare, and where the public is left to trust contracts they are rarely allowed to see. Restoring accountability means stripping away this veil of confidentiality and giving Londoners a clear view of who benefits from every outsourced deal. That requires not only political will, but a structural shift in whose interests are prioritised when decisions are taken.Until then, the cleaners who work in the shadows of the Underground will remain governed by corporate priorities, not by the needs of passengers or the city they serve.
- Redacted reports prevent Londoners from seeing how public money is spent.
- Lobbying by contractors steers policy away from insourcing and secure jobs.
- Commercial secrecy is used to block scrutiny of pay,conditions and performance.
- Workers and passengers have little say compared with multinational operators.
| Who Gains? | Who Loses? |
|---|---|
| Cleaning contractors | Low‑paid staff |
| Shareholders | Public accountability |
| Lobbyists | Passenger voice |
The social and economic cost of outsourcing cleaning services across the network
The decision to place vital cleaning roles in the hands of private contractors has generated a ripple effect of insecurity both for workers and the travelling public. Subcontracted cleaners, often on the lowest pay scales, face chronic instability through zero-hours arrangements, fragmented conditions and weaker protections, undermining any sense of belonging to the transport community they serve. This model severs them from the benefits and accountability of direct employment, creating a two-tier workforce within the same stations and depots. The result is a hidden human cost: higher stress, higher turnover and a workforce perpetually forced to juggle multiple jobs to make ends meet in one of the world’s most expensive cities.
Economically, outsourcing has embedded a profit margin between public funding and frontline work, squeezing what is available for actual cleaning while diverting millions to shareholders and senior executives. That distortion shows up in everyday realities: fewer staff on shifts, tighter schedules, and greater pressure to rush tasks, all while passengers pay more for fares and receive no clear explanation of where their money goes. In effect, Londoners are subsidising a corporate middleman. The social and financial trade-offs can be seen in:
- Chronic understaffing during off-peak and night shifts
- Inconsistent standards between lines and stations run by different contractors
- Public funds leaking out of the network as private profit
- Limited accountability when complaints and safety issues arise
| Model | Who Gains? | Who Loses? |
|---|---|---|
| Outsourced cleaning | Shareholders, contractors | Cleaners, passengers, taxpayers |
| In-house cleaning | Public services, workers | Private profit margins |
Case for insourcing cleaners to improve safety pay and working conditions
Bringing cleaning staff back in-house would immediately strengthen safety standards across the network. Directly employed cleaners are more likely to receive consistent training, proper protective equipment and guaranteed staffing levels that private contractors frequently enough cut to the bone in pursuit of profit. On a crowded transport system that millions rely on every day, that means faster responses to spillages, better management of biohazards, and more rigorous infection control. It also puts accountability where it belongs: with the public body that sets the rules, not with a chain of subcontractors whose primary obligation is to shareholders.
- Stable contracts reduce staff turnover and preserve institutional knowledge.
- Fair wages and sick pay stop workers feeling forced to work while unwell.
- Union recognition encourages workers to report hazards without fear.
- Transparent oversight ensures cleaning standards match public expectations.
| Issue | Outsourced Model | Insourced Model |
|---|---|---|
| Pay | Low, fragmented | Aligned with TfL rates |
| Conditions | Minimal sick pay | Full workplace rights |
| Safety Culture | Box‑ticking | Integrated with operations |
Improved pay and conditions are not just a moral question; they are a public safety policy. When cleaners have secure jobs, predictable hours and the confidence that they will not be penalised for raising concerns, they are more likely to flag faulty equipment, highlight security risks and maintain the high standards passengers assume already exist.Insourcing strips away the commercial secrecy that hides staffing levels and shift patterns,replacing it with a transparent,accountable system in which the people who keep stations and trains clean are treated as essential transport workers,not disposable extras.
Policy steps the London Mayor can take now to end corporate capture of TfL
The first step is to strip out the quiet, backroom influence of outsourcing giants and put decision-making back in public hands. The Mayor can instruct TfL to publish all contracts and performance data for cleaning and facilities management in a transparent, machine-readable format, and require that any future tendering processes include trade union observers. He can set binding ethical procurement rules that bar firms with a track record of union-busting,poverty pay or health and safety breaches from bidding,and introduce a London-wide Public Interest Test so that any proposed partnership or commercial deal must prove it delivers better value,accountability and working conditions than an in-house alternative. Alongside this, the Mayor can create a permanently resourced Workers’ and Passengers’ Panel with a formal role in scrutinising board decisions, challenging conflicts of interest and publishing minority reports when corporate priorities clash with public need.
At the operational level, the Mayor has immediate levers to bring cleaners and other contracted staff back into the TfL family on full equality of pay, pensions and conditions.This can be done by issuing a Mayoral Direction to end reliance on outsourced cleaning contracts at the next break point, establishing a clear timetable for insourcing, and funding it through modest commercial levy reforms on advertising and property deals that currently favour private partners. Key measures can be set out in a short public plan:
- Immediate recognition of cleaning staff as key, permanent transport workers.
- Phased insourcing aligned with contract expiry dates and budget cycles.
- Guaranteed union access and facility time across all grades.
- Living wage plus pay rates, with sick pay and pensions matching direct TfL staff.
| Action | Timescale | Main Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Publish all cleaning contracts | 3 months | Full transparency |
| Set insourcing timetable | 6 months | Clear path to direct employment |
| Create Workers’ & Passengers’ Panel | 9 months | Autonomous oversight |
| Complete cleaner insourcing | 2-3 years | End corporate control of core services |
In Conclusion
Ultimately, the battle over cleaning contracts at Transport for London is about far more than mops and buckets. It goes to the heart of who runs the capital’s transport network and in whose interests. Provided that vital services are outsourced, private firms will continue to extract profit from public money, while those who keep the system running remain on the margins.
RMT’s demand for insourcing and an end to corporate capture poses a clear challenge to City Hall: should London’s transport be shaped by the priorities of shareholders or by the needs of passengers and the workers who maintain it? With contracts up for renewal and a mayoral term under way,the window for change is open. What happens next will be a key test of whether London’s leaders are prepared to use the levers they have to reassert public control – or leave the cleaning of a world-class transport system in the hands of private interests.
