A hobby horse of mine in international development matters has been the lack of focus on or coverage of remittance flows to the developing world – that is, the money transfers from migrants working in the developed world to their countries of origin. For example, in a normal London high street the newsagent offering money transfer services probably provides a bigger flow of cash to the developing world than your local Oxfam shop does. And up to a fifth of GDP in countries like Jamaica, Lebanon and Jordan is made up of remittances from their ex-pats.

So l am glad to see that the World Bank has begun to do regular research into this unsexy area of the world economy and that the Economist in its 19 February edition (‘Trickle-down economics’) has taken notice of this, in the context of the slump in the world economy. The Economist notes that flows from remittances are themselves likely to fall, maybe up to 6 per cent globally, but that private-capital flows such as equity and lending by foreign banks have already dropped by 50 per cent. With official development assistance also likely at best to be capped by developed countries cutting their public expenditure, this clearly suggests that remittances are a much more reliable source of cash for the developing world.

In the meantime, the main transmitters of these critically important cash flows, the money transfer agents, find themselves facing over-regulation by the Financial Services Authority, if the presentations and discussions at the annual conference of the UK Money Transmitters Association that I attended today are anything to go by. It’s a real pity that the FSA did not keep a better eye on our banking friends in the City over the past decade or so, and then just maybe we would not be where we are with the economy at this moment. Surprise, surprise, instead of going for the big players in the money markets the FSA has gone for small players instead – the money transfer agents who have played such a crucial role in providing cash to the developing world.

Murad Qureshi AM has praised the work of the Metropolitan Police and the Public Carriage Office in cracking down on illegal taxis in London. Speaking after he went out with one of the teams on a late night operation in central London on Friday night, Murad said:

"It’s a pity the Mayor wasn’t there to see for himself the work the teams are doing in ridding our streets of unlicenced and often unsafe taxis. Ken Livingstone started this programme years ago when we learned of just how risky these illegal taxis are – for example we were getting reports that unlicenced drivers were responsible for on average one rape each week, mostly from trips which started in central London. The Public Carriage Office started the process of making journeys safer firstly by licencing all the cab offices, then the vehicles and finally their drivers. It’s taken a while to put all the checks in place, but I’m delighted that this has made a real difference to people’s safety."

Murad added: "All the registered private hire vehicles in London now display a PCO badge to show they’re licenced, but there’s one improvement I’d like to see to let people know that the drivers are registered – I’d like to see the private hire drivers carrying similar ID to show the’ve also been checked out and registered. I think it would give their customers more confidence that the person driving them home, potentially late at night, is a safe and proper person."

Murad Qureshi AM has congratulated Beijing for the positive feedback given by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for meeting if not exceeding many of its environment pledges for the 2008 Olympics.

Murad Qureshi AM said: "As a spectator at the games, l saw at first hand the greening of the Beijing Games with regard to improved air quality, major public transport investment, waste management at sites and generally improved green spaces of the city, so l am not surprised that UNEP have concluded that Beijing has exceeded their environmental commitments at the Games."

He added: "l trust LOCOG will have learnt from the Chinese on this front, particularly in regard to issues like air quality where we are in danger of not complying with EU directives by 2012, and the massive modal shift to public transport the Chinese achieved during the games and which they have maintained since."

It is rare that l find myself in agreement with my fellow London Assembly Member, Brian Coleman. However, on the general approach to hate preachers from abroad peddling their vile views on UK soil, we find common ground. In my case I supported a ban on Geert Wilders, the far-right racist from Holland, while Brian Coleman backed the exclusion of the homophobic US pastor Fred Phelps. Moreover, both of us congratulated the home secretary on her decision to prevent these individuals from entering the country.

Freedom of expression is not absolute. We are rightly governed by laws and conventions when we speak. As the mayor has recently learnt when abusing an MP on the phone, the public don’t like us using foul language. And we are not free to slander anyone as we please, since they can have legal recourse. So it is right and proper that incitement to hatred, and by those from abroad in particular, is treated as unacceptable in our society.

London in recent times has been given various names by admirers and critics.

Both the New York Times and the Economist have recently referred to London as Reykjavik-on-Thames, since like the Icelandic capital London is home to a stricken financial industry which once underpinned the economy. But this is only one of many names that London has been given by commentators both here and aboard. In the late 1990s, as New Labour’s pact with the City with its light touch on regulation took effect, London become known as Manhattan-on-Thames to financiers and architects. For others, like the French anti-terrorist police who were angry at the alleged relaxed manner of dealing with Islamist extremists, it became known as Londonistan. Another name, Londongrad, was adopted in response to the influx of flamboyant Russians and the servicing of their extravagant lifestyles.

Yet, for all these pseudonyms, which reflect the many aspects of life in central London, Londoners should regard the metropolis as simply London-on-Thames. If anything, the issue to hand is that not enough Londoners identify with London, particularly those in the suburbs, where people talk about going “into” or “up to” London to work or shop, and do not think of themselves as actually living in London – when in truth these areas have long been captured by the great metropolis that London-on-Thames has become. The “doughnut effect”, with the inhabitants of predominantly white suburbia seeing themselves as separate and apart from multi-ethnic, multicultural areas of inner London, was successfully exploited by Boris Johnson in last year’s mayoral election.

This division between inner and outer London is strangely reflected in the postal codes for Greater London, which in the suburbs are still the old county codes for Kent, Surrey, Middlesex and Essex. Even one of Boris Johnson’s deputies, Ian Clement, has been apologetic about having a Kent postcode while representing London. So is it not time to put an end to this historical anomaly and change these postal codes to London ones? Well, that would be a change and a half and something developers would no doubt be keen on, as they are the agents of redefining areas as part of London more often then anyone else. It could perhaps make a symbolic contribution to undermining the mentality behind the doughnut effect.

That said, let’s be grateful that after their invasion in AD 43 the Romans moved the provincial administration from Camulodunum to Londinium, otherwise the capital might still be in Colchester, Essex, and almost certainly not the global centre we are today.

Labour’s environmental spokesman on the London Assembly will tomorrow dismiss Boris Johnson’s proposal to build an airport in the Thames Estuary as a fantasy that will struggle to get off the ground.

Speaking ahead of a meeting of the London Assembly’s environment committee, Murad said: "Boris’ fantasy island will remain just that: a distant dream that will struggle to ever get off the ground. It has been described variously as ‘mad’, ‘horrendous’ and a ‘dead duck’ by his Tory colleagues, ‘not credible’ by the government, and ‘potentially the single biggest of environmental vandalism ever perpetuated in the UK’ by environmental groups. It is a thirty year-old fantasy that just won’t fly.

"The Mayor talks a green game, but all his actions point to someone who cares little for air quality or public health. He has halved the congestion charge zone, suspended the low emissions zone, slashed City Hall’s environment team and now wants to build a brand new environmentally disastrous airport in the Thames.

"Boris’ opposition to a third runway at Heathrow is based not on environmental concerns but nimbyish political expediency – why else would he propose building a whole new airport in an area where no one can vote him out?"

Opposition to fantasy island:

RSPB: "An airport sited in the Thames Estuary would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK, damaging or destroying huge areas of legally protected habitat."

British Air Transport Association: "…this is merely a kite flying exercise by the Mayor of London and one that cannot be seriously pursued. It may seem attractive to some in City Hall at the moment, but upon closer investigation will prove to be a non-starter."

Theresa Villiers MP (Shadow transport minister): "this is not an option at which the Conservative party is looking"

Lord Adonis (Transport minister): "Immediately post-war it would have been very sensible to build an airport in the Thames Estuary"

Cllr Paul Carter (Leader, Kent County Council): "Environmentally and ecologically it’s a very bad idea to build an airport off one of the most beautiful coastlines in the South East. To say it will be an eyesore is the understatement of the year. It would be totally horrendous."

Cllr Nigel Holdcroft (Leader, Southend Council): "We have all been here before and we keep on hearing about these plans. It is not even a realistic option."

Gordon Henderson (Conservative candidate, Sheppey): "Boris Island is a dead duck before it’s even been hatched"

Cllr James Cottis (Conservative, Rochester): "The plans for building an airport, with rail and other infrastructure coming through this part of the county are mad."   

The London Assembly’s environment committee will meet to discuss London’s air quality tomorrow (4 Feb 2009) at City Hall at 10am.

Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environmental spokesman on the London Assembly, has criticised Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend phase three of London’s Low Emissions Zone as "fatally bad news" for public health.

Murad Qureshi said: "It is shameful, but no big surprise, that Boris Johnson has attempted to bury his bad news under today’s snow. London’s air quality is already the worst in the UK and is responsible for over 1,000 deaths a year – more than are killed on our roads.

"Londoners will simply not believe that the Mayor is serious about improving the environment they live in while he continues to take such regressive decisions; decisions that are fatally bad for their health.

"I hope that the Mayor will look again at this and consider options like a mini low emissions zones on the London’s most polluted roads. These are just the kind of issues we will be looking at on Wednesday when the environment committee meets."

Last night I received news of a friend’s resignation from the BBC Appeals Advisory Committee after he had seen the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Gaza crisis appeal, which was rejected by the BBC as compromising its political neutrality, broadcast on Channel 4. (Resignation letter here.)

He argues persuasively that the DEC is itself a non-political body that provides an objective and transparent mechanism for international charities to debate and collectively decide on national media appeals, and that this external governance structure provides the BBC with more than enough protection of its political independence.
 
He notes that the BBC has in the past broadcast humanitarian appeals that have been potentially politically controversial. Live Aid appeals for aid to Ethiopia were broadcast in the 1980s despite concerns about the Mengistu regime, as was the 1982 DEC appeal by Sue Lawley for Palestinian and Lebanese victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the stated purpose of which was to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
 
I find it worrying that the BBC is unable to make the distinction between political bias and statements of fact, as pointed out by the Times editorial on Monday the 26th of January: “The death and suffering in Gaza is entirely the fault of Israel. That is a biased statement. The death and suffering in Gaza is entirely the fault of Hamas. That is a biased statement. There has been death and there is suffering in Gaza. That is a simple statement of fact.”
 
So, as you can imagine, l’ll be sending a letter of complaint to the BBC.

After hearing so much about the film from friends, l decided to go and see Slumdog Millionaire. And boy was it a treat, fully living up to its word-of-mouth reputation.

Slumdog Millionaire is a very rare combination of British social realism with the escapism of Indian cinema. The British realism meant that it dealt with the lives of folk in the slums of the mega-cities of South Asia, something South Asian politicians ignore at their peril and which Indian cinema has singularly failed to address. At the same time the film offers some hope in the form of a bit of Indian escapism with the central character winning a TV contest worth millions of rupees.

The film has a novel way of telling the story, with our hero Jamal Malik being asked to explain to the police how a common cha walla like himself could have won the TV contest in the first place, and each question answered involves an episode in his life. In my family we use the term cha walla as a term of endearment to encourage a fellow member of the family to make tea for the rest of us after a meal. Here it is used as a term of abuse and a means of keeping people like our hero Jamal down.

Slumdog Millionaire also broke some of the other rules of commercial cinema, with its use of subtitles which are generally discouraged, and by not having the narrative of the film explained by a white character, as would usually have been the case before in such films set in India. It not only failed to fit the Bollywood formula but Hollywood turned it down as well. Well their loss is certainly our gain.

So director Danny Boyle has done it again, with a film that is the equal of his earlier social realist portrayal of life on a Leith estate in Trainspotting. And Slumdog Millionaire can certainly look forward to winning more awards from the film world and beyond. For Boyle’s next project I would suggest a film adaptation of The Golden Gate by Vikram Seth, a novel in verse based in San Francisco.

In the run-up to the GLA elections last year the London Assembly and its members across all the political parties adopted a resolution against the further expansion of Heathrow – a policy also supported by all the major mayoral candidates.

Since being re-elected to the London Assembly, I have been appointed as the Assembly’s representative on the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC), where I have argued that we do not want a bigger Heathrow but a better one, particularly with regard to surface transport options for the users of the airport.

With the Government’s announcement on the proposed third runway at Heathrow airport imminent, it is useful to take stock of the position of the London Assembly on this issue and outline the arguments on which we base our stand.

In February 2008 the London Assembly Environment Committee, of which I am now deputy chair, submitted a formal response to the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation on Heathrow, objecting to expansion on the grounds of its impact on economic development, climate change, noise pollution and air quality. The Environment Committee remains unconvinced that the expansion of Heathrow is essential to the well being of the London and wider UK economy, or that the conditions placed on expansion by the government have adequately addressed the environmental costs and impacts of a third runway.

With regard to economic development we have taken the view that the DfT has not adequately considered the trends in passenger behaviour and the resulting growth of other airports serving London. Since 1990 the number of destinations from Heathrow has declined by 20 per cent but Gatwick for example now serves 20 more destinations than Heathrow. Between 2000 and 2006 passenger numbers increased by only 5% at Heathrow but by 18% in London airports overall. So while Heathrow’s capacity has been contained, until recently London’s financial sector has thrived. In failing to take account of these developments, the DfT has overestimated the importance of Heathrow to the London and UK economy.

On the issue of climate change it is difficult to see how the government’s new target of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050 in CO2 emissions can be achieved if the construction of a third runway at Heathrow is allowed. So it is for good reason that campaigners see the battle to stop expansion at Heathrow as the “iconic fight against climate change in the UK”. At the very least, expansion should not be considered till the Kyoto agreement includes aviation emissions as part of its binding criteria and the EU carbon emissions trading scheme has demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing UK and European emissions.

For Londoners, particularly in the west, the local environmental issues – noise pollution and air quality – are the most pressing issues.

On the noise front, it is quite clear that the 1986 Airport Act is inadequate and needs to be reformed or replaced with a more robust mechanism to enforce stringent environmental standards on noise levels. The conditional noise contour parameter should be increased to 50 decibels and effective measures introduced to encourage the adoption of quieter, cleaner engines.

As for air quality, the London Assembly has called on the DfT to give a guarantee that it will not seek an exemption for areas around Heathrow in implementing EU air quality standards in 2010. Before expansion should be considered vast improvements are required on surface and ground transport accessing the airport, as this is the biggest single factor causing the decline in air quality.

With the gloves soon off in the campaign against Heathrow’s extra runway, we can expect a package of transport measures to ease ministerial and backbench unease, such as a high-speed link with the North being built before a new runway is constructed, as part of a package to make Heathrow expansion acceptable.

I am confident that the climate change debate and European law will ensure that the third runway is never built. As already noted, Heathrow expansion on its own would scupper any government targets to cut CO2 emissions. In the meantime, Londoners will continue to switch their use of airports from Heathrow to others in Greater London.