Labour London Assembly spokesperson for the Environment Murad Qureshi welcomed the proposals announced yesterday to freeze gas and electricity prices. Previous research has estimated that 1.6 million children are currently living in fuel poverty across the UK and 3,710 Londoners die each year due to living in a cold home.   

Latest statistics reveal that nearly 300,000 London homes are judged to be fuel poor by the government’s new definition of fuel poverty which means nearly 10% of London’s homes are in fuel poverty. 

London Assembly Labour Group’s Environment spokesman Murad Qureshi said:

“I welcomed yesterday’s speech by Ed Miliband to freeze gas and electricity bills for 20 months. Enormous price rises are pushing thousands of Londoners in to fuel poverty and energy companies should be ashamed of themselves. They are putting profit over the wellbeing of their customers. 

“Every one per cent increase in energy prices sends 40,000 customers in to fuel poverty across the whole of the UK. It is disgraceful that energy companies are holding customers over a barrel like this by putting up prices on mass. 

“On average 3,710 Londoners are dying every year as a result of living in a cold home. People have to make the choice between putting food on the table and heating their home. With rents, fares and bills all going up many Londoners are struggling to keep up. The Government should be acting immediately to help those people who can’t afford to heat their homes this winter.” 

Ends

 Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is the London Assembly Labour Group’s Environment spokesman.

As a member of the London Assembly I am often contacted by Londoners about their concerns over aviation noise. I am fully aware of the distress noise causes communities as well as the detrimental impact it can have on quality of life.  My view, which is shared by my colleagues, is that amongst the many twists and turns of the aviation debate, the concerns of Londoners around noise are too frequently dismissed or regarded as secondary to other issues. 

The Mayor of London has comprehensively failed to get to grips with aviation noise.

The principle producer of noise pollution is Heathrow Airport with 28 per cent of all people in Europe affected by aircraft noise living under the Heathrow flight paths. In the last decade the problem has spread across London with disturbance now being felt up to 20 km away from the airport.  There are some parts of London that suffer noise disturbance from planes arriving and departing from London City Airport in addition to aircraft from Heathrow. This is not sustainable for a city that aspires to be, the best major city in the world to live in, as Mayor Boris Johnson set out in his recent 2020 Vision for the Capital. 

The response of Heathrow Airport to the concerns of Londoners has been as lacklustre as the Mayor’s own response, leaving many wondering to whom they can turn to make change happen.  Heathrow’s mitigation scheme for affected residents is much less than that offered by London City Airport.  Residents near Heathrow must wait for the noise to reach a higher decibel level than their counterparts near City Airport before they are even eligible for support. This assistance when it is provided can only ever mitigate, not eliminate, the noise distress which they experience every day of their lives. 

The first step to mitigate the issue of noise pollution must be for the Mayor to re-establish the GLA Noise Team which was shut down when the Mayor came to office. The team would be able to undertake a comprehensive update of the Mayor’s noise strategy which has not been revised in nine years.  The noise strategy would act as the foundation for a tough set of guidelines setting out the mitigation measures that airports offer and seek to create a uniform standard of measures that all airport operators could adhere to. 

The current self-regulation by the airports has failed Londoners. They have demonstrated their inability to restrain their commercial activities from having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of Londoners. The GLA Noise Team should become a statutory regulator of aviation noise mitigation schemes and act as a guarantor of the public interest. 

The work of the Airports Commission is arguably one of the most significant national inquiries into infrastructure commissioned by the government in recent decades. This is the best opportunity Londoners have had for many years to put their concerns on aviation noise to decision makers. It is critical that noise disturbance and the lack of effective mitigation measures against it are uppermost in the mind of the Commission.

I believe re-establishing the GLA Noise Team could make a real difference to the lives of millions of Londoners. Mayoral indifference coupled with the ineffective actions of the airport operators have left Londoners frustrated and disenchanted with political process. The final report of the Commission must go some way to bridge that gap. 

Noise, as well as other environmental factors, clearly swings the debate about airport capacity against any expansion of Heathrow. The London Assembly unanimously opposes Heathrow expansion in terms of either runway capacity or passenger numbers, and has called for the final report from the Airports Commission before the next general election. 

Put simply, Londoners cannot be expected to tolerate the aviation noise that blights communities on a daily basis for a moment longer. So don’t keep calm, say no to aircraft noise and don’t expect the Mayor to do anything about it.

One of the oldest bus routes in London will be serviced by the new London bus from this Saturday. London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM is concerned that the Mayor of London Boris Johnson is wasting farepayers’ money on the excessive costs of the new buses when he should be concentrating on improving air quality on Westminster’s most polluted roads.   

Bus route number 11 runs from Liverpool Street Station to Fulham Broadway, via Bank, Mansion House, St Paul’s, Ludgate Circus, Fleet Street, Aldwych, Trafalgar Square, Westminster, Victoria, Sloane Square and Chelsea and has been operating for 107 years.  

Each new London bus cost £50,000 more than a comparable hybrid bus. For all 600 buses this excess will be £30million. Each bus requires a second crew member when its rear platform is in operation, and this has been estimated to add a cost of £62,000 per vehicle per year, or £37million for all 600 buses. 

The new buses have also been beset by design flaws with the buses reaching above 30⁰C during the summer because the “air-cooling” system couldn’t cope and the buses do not have any windows. 

Labour London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“Boris has wasted farepayers’ money on this vanity project. He has wasted £30million on buses which are no more environmentally-friendly then the current hybrid buses we have in London. Boris needs to prioritise putting greener buses on the routes with the highest pollution levels and bring forward the Ultra Low Emission Zone. 

“Westminster has a very real problem with poor air quality on all of its main roads. When it comes to London’s exceptionally poor air quality Boris has his head stuck firmly in the sand. 

“Bus fares have gone up by 55% under Boris from 90p to £1.40, hitting Londoners in the pocket. Boris will shortly be deciding on how much to raise fares by in January. After five years of inflation-busting increases he needs to ease the pressure on Londoners and keep it to inflation. If he didn’t waste so much money this would be a lot easier.” 

Ends 

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a London wide Assembly Member.
2. The costs of the new buses and rear platform staff costs can be found here: http://taxileaks.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/tfl-reveals-cost-of-new-bus-for-london.html and here: http://londonist.com/2013/05/new-bus-for-london-cost-revealed.php

Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s plan to close Westminster and Knightsbridge fire stations was yesterday approved when his fire deputy used his casting vote to force through cuts to the Fire Service. The plans to cut 10 fire stations and 14 fire engines have been consistently opposed by Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM and opposition members on the fire authority.  

The Mayor issued a legal direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) to force them to comply with his cuts plan. LFEPA sought legal guidance on whether they could challenge the Mayoral Direction in the courts. However, the legal guidance received clearly states that there is no legal basis to challenge the Mayoral Direction and any court case would be lost. 

The legal opinion by a leading QC means that if the cuts had been challenged in court the Authority would have lost and potentially cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees. The extra delay could also have led to compulsory redundancy of firefighters and even greater cuts to the service. 

The Mayor was also presented with another chance to change his position today when LFEPA passed a motion calling on the Mayor to abandon his Mayoral Direction. LFEPA have asked the Fire Commissioner to investigate alternative crewing arrangements for aerial appliances, fire and rescue units and the possible removal of a small number of each. It is believed the savings generated would be enough to cover the shortfall caused by the Mayor’s cut to the Fire Authority. 

LFEPA has already seen cuts of £71million in back office savings, however to pay for his penny a day council tax cut the Mayor has cut the fire budget.  The approval of LFEPA for the Mayor’s fire cuts was forced through by Boris’ appointed chair of LFEPA, James Cleverly AM, who used his casting vote to approve the plan. 

London wide Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“We are all deeply disappointed that Boris’ cuts have now been forced through and that Westminster and Knightsbridge fire station will now close.  We wanted to continue the fight in court. However, the legal advice we received was categorical and clearly stated we had no legal basis to challenge the Mayor in this way. If we had gone down this route then we would have spent a large amount of taxpayers’ money fighting a futile battle. Today we have offered the Mayor a way out and avoid cuts to the stations and engines. Let’s hope he finally listens to Londoners and drops his reckless plan. 

“We oppose these cuts and have done so since they were first announced. By working with Londoners we have saved up to 21 fire stations that were under threat of closure. It is a disgrace that Boris has not used his power and resources to fully fund the London Fire Brigade and keep the other ten open as well. He is putting Londoners at risk and making our great city less safe. The public have spoken with one clear voice; the overwhelming majority do not want these cuts and want to protect frontline fire services. 

“Boris may be celebrating but today Londoners have lost, he should hang his head in shame. The London Fire Brigade does a fantastic job keeping us all safe and secure when we are at our most vulnerable. It is a testament to Boris’ cavalier approach and arrogance that he has not listened to Londoners and protected frontline services.” 

“Last year the Mayor announced funding cuts and plans to axe 31 fire stations and 36 fire engines. In the face of concerted opposition from Londoners this was reduced to 12 fire stations and 14 fire engines. Following further pressure throughout a fraught consultation this year the Mayor eventually decided to reprieve Clapham Common and New Cross Fire Stations and reverse his decision to cut the second fire appliance at Chelsea Fire Station. East Greenwich Fire Station also received an additional second appliance that was transferred from Woolwich Fire Station. 

Ends 

Notes 

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.
2. The full LFEPA Authority meeting documents can be found here: http://moderngov.london-fire.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=303&T=10
3. The amendment to the Supplementary Budget Report by the Fiona Twycross AM can be found here:

B. In response to the clearly expressed views of Londoners, this Authority asks the Mayor to abandon his direction and work with the Authority to meet the budget gap for 2014/15 through the potential savings noted at the Resources Committee as an alternative to cutting frontline fire stations and appliances. 

Moved by: Dr Fiona Twycross AM

Seconded by: Cllr Peter Truesdale

Mayor of London Boris Johnson today came under pressure on his record in rolling out the London Living Wage (LLW). At the current rate it will take 450 years for all low paid workers in London to receive the LLW. At today’s Mayor’s Question Boris was called on to accelerate the roll out of the LLW and for London to become a full Living Wage Zone. 

Boris also faced questions on the cost of living crisis that is hitting people, including the impact on BME Londoners; Boris’ fare rises; the use of Zero-Hours contracts; the cost of childcare; food poverty and rising energy prices.  

In Hounslow private rents went up by 1 per cent from October 2011 to September 2012, which amounts to £129 a year, whilst the average change in wages has decreased by 5.40 per cent. 

Labour London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“Londoners are struggling with a cost of living crisis with rents, food, fuel, childcare and fares outstripping wages. In Hounslow, residents renting privately have seen rents go up by 1 per cent from October 2011 to September 2012. That works out as an extra £129.00 a year. But the average change in wages has decreased by 5.40 per cent. 

“It is time the Mayor used his position and accelerated the expansion of the London Living Wage. At the current rate it will take nearly 450 years for all low paid Londoners to receive a living wage, I do not want to live in a city where people are forced to survive on poverty pay. If employers paid a living wage it would save the taxpayer money on the benefits bill, it would provide a boost to the London economy and allow people to live and not merely survive.” 

Ends 

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.

It’s time for Londoners to unite in opposition against a planned increase in water bills of £29 for 2014-15. Following the announcement that Thames Water has sought permission from water regulator Ofwat to increase bills for millions of hard-pressed Londoners, I felt compelled to write to Ofwat urging them to reject any hike in charges. 

Thames Water defended the increase, citing customer debt, increased environment agency charges and the unexpectedly high costs of purchasing land for construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. Thames Water is the only water company to have made an application to Ofwat. 

Following my letter,Ofwat’s Director of Finance Keith Mason wrote to me, stating that (Ofwat) “will not approve any increase in bills that Thames Water does not justify as being in their customers’ interests”. 

Ofwat will not approve Thames Water’s raid on family budgets unless they can justify the hike as being in the interests of Londoners. Yet, It is unbelievable that Thames Water, one of the country’s biggest water companies, should be seeking to raise prices at a time when many Londoners are struggling with the rising cost of living.   Thames Water themselves acknowledge this, stating without any sense of irony, that it’s because of increased customer debt that prices must go up.  Research from the Consumer Council for Water has shown that one customer in seven is already struggling to pay their water bill. 

The decision now rests with Ofwat to decide. I would urge Londoners to contact Ofwat and tell them if they think if it is in their best interests to pay an extra £29 next year. Londoners can write to the regulator at Ofwat, Centre City Tower,7 Hill Street, Birmingham, B5 4UA.”

At this week’s Transport Committee meeting l bang on about the upgrading of the forgotten lines on the tube Piccadilly ( & Bakerloo line ) when we discussed the Mayor’s Transport vision within his 2020 Vision document with his Transport adviser and TfL officials. Remember its already 11 years over due!

If you think the Piccadilly line is bad for travellers to Heathrow, think about the lot of local residents in West London. When getting on to the Piccadilly line tube particularly from Hounslow tube stops, you face a mountain of luggage in its narrow carriages to get into the train! At best you will be standing over other people’s luggage in the carriage. And to add insult to the wound, it passes through Chiswick as it speeds through 4 tube stations over a length of some 4.5 milles before getting to Hammersmith, where many would like to get on and off at some point in Chiswick.

TfL need to sort it out asap and begin their upgrade programme immediately, not only for the sake of travellers to Heathrow but also local residents on the Piccadilly, particularly in West London with better frequency of service and stopping in Turnham Green at least.

I had of course asked questions about it last month particularly in light of the impact of Chancellors CSR. Please find the attached link to the response to my question to the Mayor as well.

Amirul Amin is welcomed to City Hall

Last Friday, I welcomed Amirul Amin, President of the National Garment Workers’ Federation (NGWF) in Bangladesh to City Hall to speak about the need to improve working conditions in Bangladesh. In July of this year, I seconded a motion to the London Assembly calling for the Mayor and GLA family to use contractors signed up to the IndustriALL Accord. 

IndustriALL is the global union for garment workers, which has developed an Accord on Fire and Building Safety. This has been signed by many major British retailers. Amirul Amin is in the UK to speak at the Trades Unions Conference which started at the weekend. There are 3.5million people working in Bangladeshi garment factories that produce goods for export to the global market, principally Europe and North America.

I was especially pleased to welcome Mr Amin to City Hall last week to hear about the struggle he is leading against sweatshop conditions in Bangladesh’s factories. The National Garment Workers’ Federation fights for the rights of garment workers in Bangladesh and I support their calls to improve the appalling conditions facing many workers in the factories there.

Despite the tragedy of the Rana Plaza Factory collapse back in April, 8 Global brands still have not signed up to the Safety Accord.  Please help change by urging them to change this.  You can participate by clicking here.  

London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM yesterday attempted to block the Mayor’s changes to the London Plan. The Mayor’s changes will now mean that new ‘affordable’ housing will be set at up to 80 per cent of the market rate in London. This will lead to many new properties in London meant for people on low and modest incomes becoming totally unaffordable.  

Yesterday was an historic opportunity for the Assembly to reject a Mayoral strategy but a two-thirds majority could not be secured. This was the first time new powers granted to the Assembly under the Localism Act have been used. 

In Westminster, where the household median income is £39,951, tenants would need to have a gross household income of £81,813 to afford a two bed property at 80 per cent of market rent.

Westminster borough argued that: 

“No reasonable assessment of this data could draw the conclusion that provision of housing at 80% of Westminster’s market rent either provides “affordable housing” or would enable the City Council to meet its full, objectively assessed needs for affordable housing.” 

At the EIP they argued that: 

“We do not believe affordable housing should be secured irrespective of whether people can afford it… 

Labour London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“Today’s vote is a hammer blow and signals the death of new truly affordable housing in London. It is a complete travesty that this has happened. Westminster is against the Mayor’s plan as well as other boroughs of all political persuasions. 

“The changes will mean that, to rent a two bedroom flat in Westminster at the new 80% level a family would have to earn £81,813. The median family income in Westminster is £39,951. This is why I voted against this. 

“The Mayor’s changes will make London’s housing crisis even worse. They will now push affordable housing out of the reach of many Londoners on low, and in some areas, modest incomes. This will also drive up rent, increase land prices and further distort London’s housing market. Boris should have accepted the recommendations of the Independent Planning Inspector, listened to local authorities and revised his London Plan. 

“Combined with the welfare reforms the Mayor’s changes will make huge swathes of inner London even more unaffordable than they already are. Today’s vote will contribute to the ghettoization of our city and put intolerable strain on a range of already overburdened local services in outer London. This is effectively giving up on ordinary Londoners on modest incomes by making it harder for them to find a home that is affordable.”

 Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly. 
2. The London boroughs’ concerns with the Mayor’s proposed changes to the London Plan were raised during the ‘Examination in Public’, further details can be found here: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-plan/examination-in-public and the borough’s specific concerns here: http://www.slideshare.net/CityHallLabour/joint-boroughs-rema-response  

There’s been a lot of media coverage in the national papers over the disappointing progress to date of the Government’s flagship environmental programme, the Green Deal. Millions have been spent by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in bringing forward this new energy efficiency scheme aimed at households, but the Government’s own latest statistics, issued earlier this week, show that some eight months after the Green Deal commenced, only one person had reached the “live” stage of the programme so far. 

London has long-been short changed in terms of receiving support from the national energy efficiency retrofit programmes. The Government’s main insulation schemes have over the past 10 years seen the ‘big 6’ energy companies steer clear of London, stating that it’s cheaper for them to meet their targets and insulate homes outside the capital. So, whilst Londoner’s have long been funding the national insulation programmes through energy bills, they have missed out on helping reduce their own energy costs. 

It’s now been over two months since I asked the Mayor a question seeking clarification on the cost savings achieved by households who had gone through his own London-bespoke energy efficiency programme, RE:NEW. The normal response deadline for such Mayoral Questions (MQs) has now long gone and, despite several further prompts to Boris’s office, I’m still waiting for an answer. 

It’s not the first time Boris has held back on providing details on his multi-million pound RE:NEW scheme. After first stating that a programme evaluation report would be released in November 2012, it took further MQs to remind of him of his promise before, finally, analysis was released in June. Even then, this turned out to be only a summary assessment – the final evaluation study will, according to Boris,  be published in “Summer 2013”.  I’m not holding my breath. 

The RE:NEW programme model is to provide Londoners with a number of no-cost ‘easy measures’ such as an energy display devices, radiator panels and draught proofing insulation and then using these interventions to boost the take up of more significant solutions such as cavity wall and loft insulation through the national energy efficiency programme. 

The RE:NEW website sets out that “It is designed to reduce CO2 emissions from London’s homes, save residents money on their utility bills and make their homes warmer. It also contributes to reducing fuel poverty.”  Limited technical trials took place of RE:NEW in 2009, followed by demonstration projects in 2010. Originally launched through area-based programmes, RE:NEW was fully rolled out in 2011 and is now described as a ‘pan-London’ scheme, with all boroughs taking part.  

The Mayor has to date spent £7.8m on RE:NEW with the majority of this money (£5.7m) allocated to the 2011 pan-London rollout. The evaluation summary report looked at this rollout phase and stated that 50,683 homes were retrofitted and that savings could be as much as £122 per year to those households who took up further insulation offers from energy suppliers. 

However, as my still-unanswered question to the Mayor points out, the evaluation report reveals that after having the no-cost ‘easy measures’ installed – the vast majority of households – 97% – did NOT then go on to take up further insulation measures. Hence savings achieved to those homes that went through  RE:NEW are estimated to amount to only £28.81. This is nowhere near the level of £154 saving originally reported to the London Assembly during the RE:NEW pilot phase. 

To put this in context, if you take the average energy bill for Londoners to be around £1,300, homes going through RE:NEW benefitted by  a 2% saving to their energy bills. Over Boris’s term as Mayor, Londoners have seen their energy bills rise by around 20%. With future price rises anticipated by the ‘big six’ energy suppliers later this year, it appears that RE:NEW has managed to achieve little in terms of insulating homes or helping alleviate fuel poverty. 

A second phase of RE:NEW funding has recently been approved by the Mayor with the Capita group appointed to oversee programme management. They have recently stated that they want RE:NEW to “accelerate domestic retrofit projects in London” and be “bigger, better, faster”.  They will need to seriously improve on previous performance to help stop RE:NEW go the same way many think the Green Deal is now going.