At last night’s London Waterways Commission (LWC), we had a presentation from Transport for London on their recently launched River Action Plan, to double passenger numbers along the Thames by 2020.

It was welcomed by all, yet many of the Commissioners agreed it should be called the “Passenger” River Action Plan because it fails to mention the role of freight along the Thames.  The emphasis is clearly on river passengers alone.  By highlighting this, The LWC Commissioners hope to usefully address these concerns.

Nonetheless, I found the river tube plan very interesting (above), in particular all the new piers being suggested, essentially by developers of waterside developments.  In the West we have Plantation Wharf and Battersea Power Station while in the East we have Barking & Gallions Reach.

Given the emphasis on Piers as destinations in the action plan, it occurs to me that one place that has been neglected is Brentford in the West.  It is the point at which the river Brent and the canals meet the Thames and it’s envisaged that passenger boats will go past it on their way to to Richmond and Kingston, so why can’t Brentford have a Pier as well.  Famously it is claimed that Julius Caesar landed there when he came over to Londinium during his reign  in 54 BC for the second invasion of Britannia as Brentford is a likely site of a battle recorded between Julius Cæsar and the local king, Cassivellaunus

So a Pier at Brentford on the Thames called “Julius Caesar Pier”?  Has a ring to it and is something l should possibly pursue with the Mayor?

The new Police and Crime Plan repeats the claim that all of London’s 32 boroughs will see an increase in the number of police officer based in their borough. The Mayor has been previously criticised for this claim as it is based on police numbers in 2011, a low point for the Met following a recruitment freeze. Compared to 2010 17 of London’s 32 boroughs will see a decrease in the number of police officers, and the remaining boroughs will not receive as many extra officers as promised.

The plan also confirms that over 60 police stations and front counters will be closed, 12 stations earmarked for closure have been reprieved but more stations that were safe have been put on the list. The Police and Crime Plan fails to provide any detail about these closures, it also fails to details where the new “Contact Points” will be based.

Londonwide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“For Boris to continue claiming that Westminster will see an increase in police officer numbers is misleading.  Westminster will have 58 fewer officers once his plans are put in place. He is peddling his tired old line that his plan won’t cut frontline police services. It’s time he was honest with residents and tell them he failed to get a good deal from government and now we are paying the price.

“Boris is planning on closing all the stations in the north of the Borough against the wishes of local residents who have been clear in their opposition to the Mayor’s plans. He told us that all police stations closed down would receive like-for-like replacements but today’s announcement shows this isn’t the case. Rather than wasting time promoting himself on the national stage, the Mayor should be paying attention to his day job and getting a better deal for Londoners from his colleagues in government”

Ends

Notes

1.    Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour Londonwide Assembly Member

2.    Attached is a table detailing the amount of police officers in each borough and how the Mayor’s claims are inaccurate.

3.    Please find the plans for each individual borough here: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/policing-crime/mission-priorities/police-and-crime-plan

<shapetype coordsize=”21600,21600″ o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f” stroked=”f” id=”_x0000_t75″><stroke joinstyle=”miter”></stroke><formulas><f eqn=”if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0″></f><f eqn=”sum @0 1 0″></f><f eqn=”sum 0 0 @1″></f><f eqn=”prod @2 1 2″></f><f eqn=”prod @3 21600 pixelWidth”></f><f eqn=”prod @3 21600 pixelHeight”></f><f eqn=”sum @0 0 1″></f><f eqn=”prod @6 1 2″></f><f eqn=”prod @7 21600 pixelWidth”></f><f eqn=”sum @8 21600 0″></f><f eqn=”prod @7 21600 pixelHeight”></f><f eqn=”sum @10 21600 0″></f></formulas><path o:extrusionok=”f” gradientshapeok=”t” o:connecttype=”rect”></path><lock v:ext=”edit” aspectratio=”t”></lock></shapetype><shape type=”#_x0000_t75″ style=”WIDTH: 77.25pt; HEIGHT: 49.5pt” id=”_x0000_i1025″><imagedata src=”file:///C:UsersNSalihAppDataLocalTempmsohtmlclip11clip_image001.emz” o:title=””></imagedata></shape>

The scale of cuts announced by the Police and Crime plan yesterday is no laughing matter

Whilst l enjoyed the mauling of the Mayor of London on the AM Show on Sunday morning by Eddie Mair, it was five years too late to have any significant political impact.  The same interview in 2008 would have almost certainly scuppered Boris’s ambitions to become Mayor.  That’s probably why he was able to laugh it all off yesterday by suggesting Eddie Mair was only doing his job. 

However, Londoners are the biggest losers as a result of the current spotlight on the Mayor’s past, not least because of the conveniently scheduled BBC programme last night ‘Boris Johnson: The irresistible rise’ which has quite neatly served to divert attention away from yesterday’s announcement on his police cuts in London.  The scale and potential impact of this to policing in London is huge and yet it has made few editorials today.  The Mayor’s London Police and Crime Plan confirms that over 60 police stations and front counters will be closed, 12 stations earmarked for closure have been reprieved but more stations that were safe have been put on the list. It fails to provide any detail about these closures and also fails to detail where the new “Contact Points” will be based.  Despite the Mayor’s dubious claims, police numbers are also down in several boroughs and safer neighbourhood policing goes out of the window.  

Call me a cynic, but it was not surprising that the Mayor launched his Police & Crime Plan on the morning of the one hour special on his life on BBC2. Critically it took away attention from what he is doing as Mayor and focused on the man himself. So, all the headlines today, both in the press and on TV have been about the alleged fall-out from the interview and last night’s programme rather than what he’s doing to the police service in London. 

Boris may be laughing off his car crash interview, but he’s also having the last laugh at Londoner’s expense as the BBC appear to help him out of another very difficult corner in his political life – but on this occasion, the cost to London is too high. 

The Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan can be viewed here

Confirmation of what we suspected for station closures in the north of the borough

 If you want confirmation of what we have always suspected was going to happen in the North of the City of Westminster, the diagram above released today as part fo the Mayors Policing & Crime Plan  confirms our worst fears – closure of 3 out of the 4 Police stations and more reliance on the contact and safer neighbourhood policing in the South and neigbouring boroughs.

Very few areas in London has suffered such a prolific loss of front counters as we know them.  Paddington Green police station is the only survivor but is one of the most unwelcoming because of the huge security presence it is associated with, due in part to the terrorist unit being based there.

This is a huge loss to the north of the borough where it appears the face of policing will never be the same again.

Last night l had the privilege of speaking to an audience about saving Westminster fire station in SW1.

Firstly, I made clear that I was proud to stand alongside firemen & women outside City Hall on the 25^th of February in protest against the Mayors of London’s cuts to the fire service.  I was also proud to have been asked to deliver a petition of over 500 signatures of local residents in Pimlico against the closure of their fire station along Greycoat lane to the Mayor; and as a result l voted against the Mayor’s final budget proposal.

Boris’s budget proposal involves the closure of 12 fire stations including Westminster; 18 fire engines taken off the roads; and 520 front line fire officers losing their jobs. London’s fire chief has said the cuts are driven by financial considerations. The Mayor has reduced the council tax precept by just a penny a day (per household for a Band D property). I suspect most Londoners, including those who live in the City of Westminster would have preferred him to used that penny towards keeping London safe instead.

According to the London Fire Brigade (LFB), the potential impact of the closures in the City of Westminster will be an increase in the arrival of both the first and second fire engines to an incident in Westminster.  The first fire engine will arrive, on average, 41 seconds later while the second fire engine will arrive 29 seconds later, on average. That may not sound a lot, but when you think that a fire quadruples in intensity every 2 minutes, then every second really does count.

Other borough fire station closures will also compound the effect of the proposals.   Other stations earmarked for closure include Knightsbridge, Clerkenwell & Belsize stations.  All three will impact on Westminster. For example 60 per cent of the mobilisation (that’s 359 incidents) out of Knightsbridge Fire Station in the last six months were to Westminster addresses.   So each area is dependent on fire engines from neighbouring fire stations.  

It is vital that as many Londoners as possible express their views on these cuts, especially if they believe, like me that they are wrong.  You can have your say online, by post and by attending the public meeting for your area.  The consultation on the fifth London Safety Plan was formally launched on the 4th of March. Further information is available on the LFB website – www.london-fire.gov.uk/lsp5.

There will be a further, formal public meeting in Westminster on Tuesday 15th of May 2013 between 7-9 pm, at the Regent Hall, Salvation Army, 275 Oxford Street, W1C  2DJ.  Westminster residents should make their voices heard on that evening loud and clear.

So whilst the Mayor of London preoccupies himself with other matters, like becoming the PM one day?  In the meantime, he neglects his responsibility of ensuring the maintenance of the capital’s emergency services in London.  He does so at the peril of Londoner’s safety.   So yes, while Boris fiddles, London potentially burns!

Last night as the council informed the world that pork was discovered in halal chicken sausages served at its primary schools, its appears the officers of the council saw fit not to inform the members of the Council on this grave matter for the parents of the City of Westminster. Please see attached e-mail letter from Cllr Papya Qureshi of Westbourne Ward below to the CEO of the Council Mike More:

 Dear Mike,

The fact that you are sending us a PR message and that we actually have more information from a Guardian article, amongst others, shows an utter disregard for the gravity of this matter, which I personally find insulting.

Horse meat is one level, this is a completely different level – you cannot mix the two up and I am worried now that Chartwells may have been providing such meat for a lot longer than you anticipated.

I can not start to explain to you the feeling of disgust and impact this will have on the many Muslim and Jewish residents of Westminster, like myself. In the few hours of this evening, I have already had concerned friends and family members from the borough contact me.

I expect to face many more concerns from residents over the coming days and weeks. The information you have provided so far does not scratch the surface of the concerns people will have and under-equips Muslim members like myself to honestly address this.

Even for the most secular Muslims, one line which is never crossed is the eating of Pork. I find it unacceptable that you did not inform us earlier that concerns of pork contamination were there, that tests were being conducted and what the outcome of these tests were immediately and in more detail.

Both Halal and Kosher meat are so specifically prepared and has indeed been so for many centuries, puts into question: just how hard can it be to get it wrong? Further in a borough where Halal meat is so widely available locally, how does Chartwell, which is paid over £3million by the council, still not manage to deliver?

Your press release uses the terms ‘may have’ and ‘potentially affecting’. Further just last month the council denied that even horse meat was being used and claimed that Chartwell’s meat was fresh and prepared by kitchen staff. What is the true extent of this and what actions is the council taking above and beyond what your press release indicates?

Kind regards,

Cllr Papya Qureshi

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

For many families in the City of Westminster this is confirmation of their worst fears when the horse meat scandal first broke, particularly muslim ones. That the food served to their children was similiarly contaminated. Its quite clear that the council ( and probably other ones as well across London ) must immediately source their halal food locally rather then through these big suppliers. In the meantime, its going to have to be vegetarian food for the children for the time being, as l understand primary schools like Gateway have notified their parents already this morning.

The council will have lost alot of credibility over this episode and its going to take an awful long time to regain the confidence of some very dissappointed parents and their children in the borough.

Night flights are a key environmental concern for Londoners because of the noise pollution from aircraft at unsettling times when people are just about to fall asleep or in the very early hours in the morning or worst still, in the middle of the night! If you knock on the doors of West London suburbs you won’t hear about the problem of carbon emissions or air quality but you will invariably hear about the blight of aircraft noise on the quality of local resident’s lives and as the top major environmental concern.

It was with this in mind that the London Assembly Health & Environment Committee held a session last week on the government’s consultation on night flights at Heathrow airport. Whilst, cross party, the London Assembly is against the present night flight regime (which permits up to 15 flights during the night, mostly arriving after 5am from the Far East), we will still be responding to some of the  new government proposals.

For example, there is a proposal to allow night flight landings coming in from the west of Heathrow; that is over Thames Valley and in particular Windsor.  This would mean quieter nights for an estimated 100,000 Londoners east of Heathrow including many in Hounslow but increased disturbance for about 15,000 people over in the West.  On paper, this may appear to be the lesser of 2 evils; however night flight changes should not be adopted to the detriment of other Londoners.  The changes should seek to improve the experience for Londoners already affected without creating new problems for other residents.   My view is that Londoners deserve better so watch this space for the Committee’s response to the consultation.

…should say “Welcome to Manchester Stanstead” now that MAG own it!

With completion of the Manchester Airport Group (MAG) take over of Stansted today, there is plenty the Mayor of London could learn from this consortium of Greater Manchester local authorities purchase of this one airport and thus becoming a real player in aviation in London & the South-East. For example how to actually run a commerical airport in the interests of their local authority shareholders rather then going on about airy fairy airport expansion plans in London & the South East. So in this respect local authorities like the City of Manchester along with Bolton, Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Salford,  Tameside,  Oldham, Trafford &  Bury know alot more about aviation then Boris Johnson does at present. It’s potentially a game changer for increasing airport capacity in the South East, as well as it gives them a good base from which to put up firm proposals. The mayor of London certainly does not have that at all. 

At the last Transport Committee l asked the mayor’s adviser on aviation, Councillor Daniel Moylan whether it had occurred to the Mayor to have made a bid for Stansted, as we heard for the first time about the MAG bid? I was told that was commerically confidential!  My blog at the time suggested it was an example of municipal capitalism coming down to London but I am not sure it was ever seriously considered by them. 

The Mayor quite honestly would have been better off buying Stansted for £1.5 billion like our colleagues in local government of Greater Manchester, rather than chasing Arab shiekhs for some loose change of up to £80 billion for far fetched ideas like the Thames Estuary airport.  There are rumours he will soon go to the Middle East for backers for his aviation ideas. 

So in short Manchester local authorities can teach Boris a thing or two about the aviation business. Thus the Mayor would be better off taking the train to Manchester then a flight to the Middle East!

Reacting to the comments, Murad Qureshi AM, London Labour Assembly Environment spokesperson said:

“The comments made by the Mayor’s environment adviser show how ludicrous Boris’s position is. Rather than taking concrete steps to tackle air pollution in London, he is now telling children not to play outside. After 5 years in office, Boris has utterly failed on air pollution. The capital is still among the worst cities in Europe for poor air and, as a result, over 4,000 lives are lost prematurely every year in our city.

“Rather than tackling the problem now, Boris has announced a wish list of proposals that wouldn’t come into effect for another seven years. He has also rowed back on plans to introduce phase 5 of the Low Emissions Zone. In the Labour Group amendment to the Mayor’s budget we provided costed plans to buy an additional 50 Hybrid buses and to move forward with a complete programme of fleet modernisation, which would include a pilot study of all electric vehicles.”

Ends

Notes

1.    Murad Qureshi is a Labour London-wide Assembly Member. He chairs the London Assembly’s Health and Environment Committee.

2.    The Mayor’s Adviser’s comments can be found at http://www.lbc.co.uk/london-pollution-so-bad-children-should-be-kept-inside-68118

The London Assembly required a two-thirds majority to amend the Mayor’s budget. At the first meeting the three opposition groups passed a “˜Technical Amendment’ which forced Boris to review freezing the council tax precept, rather than cutting it by one penny a day for an average household. This would raise £9.6 million, which could be used to keep all of London’s fire stations open and maintain police front counter provision across London.

This would have:

• Kept Westminster and Knightsbridge fire stations open

• Helped 135 Westminster residents and 100 Hounslow residents under 24 and out of work for more than a year into work through Labour’s Jobs Guarantee. This scheme would give 21 hours per week of work experience, paid at the London Living Wage for six months.

• Saved West London residents, travelling from Zone 4 to Zone 1, £282.74 a year by cutting transport fares by 1% so they are in line with inflation

Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi said:

“It is clear that the Mayor of London’s cuts are too far and too fast. Boris had a clear choice between cutting council tax by one pence a day, or freezing it and using the money to keep fire stations such as Westminster and Knightsbridge open. But Boris chose to carry on with his foolish plan to axe 12 fire stations and 18 fire engines. 

“Boris is needlessly jeopardising the safety and security of Londoners. We presented the Mayor with a fully costed plan which keeps much needed front line services but he wants to continue with his ill-thought out proposals.

“Boris has cut his share of the council tax by one pence a day per household, but at the same time has whacked up fares above inflation for the fifth year running. If he had taken on our budget proposal to cut transport fares by one per cent he could have saved residents in Zone 4 and travelling to Zone 1 £282.74 over the course of a year. It’s time for Boris to get serious and stand up for Londoners instead of campaigning for tax cuts for millionaires.”

Ends

Notes

1.    Murad Qureshi is a London wide Assembly Member.

2.    The cross-party amendment can be found here: http://cityhalllabour.org/cross-party-budget-change-forces-boris-to-ditch-frontline-999-cuts/

3.    The Budget meeting took place at City Hall on Monday 25th February 2013. You can watch the meeting here: www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/webcasts

For more information please contact Press and Research Officer Sophie Kimber, on 020 7983 5639. Number not for publication.