Author Archives: Murad

‘Bad air day’ moves Londoners closer to a £300m fine

The Marylebone Road air pollution monitoring station this morning reported 36 breaches of legal air quality limits. The maximum number of breaches permitted for each monitoring station for the full year is 35. 

Just last month the European Commission in Brussels gave the UK a temporary reprieve until 11 June this year to give the Mayor of London time bring down levels of the dangerous PM10 pollutants to a safe standard.

Today’s breach could prompt the Commission to instigate legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice, fast tracking the UK to stage three of a six-stage process leading to the fine.  And under the government’s Localism Bill, the £300 million fine would be passed to London taxpayers.

Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi said: "London’s air quality is responsible for over 4,000 premature deaths each year.  We were given a temporary reprieve by the EU but Boris has done little to comply and avoid this fine which Londoners simply cannot afford. 

“The Mayor’s tactic has been to blame European air blowing over to the UK, but what about the polluted air which blows over to Europe from the UK?  Londoners are facing a catastrophe both financially and in terms of their health, Boris needs to stop the blame game and take control of this rapidly deteriorating situation”

Ends.

Notes

The exceedance is recorded on the London Air Quality Network website

 

Murad Qureshi is a London-wide Assembly Member and is Vice Chair of the Assembly’s Environment Committee

Murad questioned the Mayor about the fine and stressed the urgency of taking measures to avoid the EU fine at Mayor’s Question Time last year in June.

For further information please contact Murad Qureshi on 07795616821

A bank for expats, by expats

Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi said: “It goes without saying that if in practice it is to be an NRB Bank, then a majority of sponsor shareholding must be by NRBs, by a clear figure as well.”

The government has decided to set up a new bank that is owned equally by non-resident Bangladeshis and locals. The NRBs will provide Tk 400 crore in paid-up capital, while the rest will be raised through a public offering.

The central bank has also published a set of criteria to evaluate the application forms.

Qureshi welcomes the government initiative taken for the NRBs. “We now need details. The details need to be sorted out.”

“It is very important to appropriately set up the NRB bank so that the NRBs can continue to assist in the development of the Bangladesh economy,” said Qureshi, whose parents are from Sylhet.

“For it to be a proper NRB bank, the NRBs have to make up of majority shareholding. The nature of the bank demands it as most of its customers live abroad, not here. It needs more than 50 percent ownership from people living abroad. It could be 60 percent or possibly 80 percent.”

An avid cricket fan, Qureshi lives in Central London and was recently in Dhaka to watch the World Cup matches.

He said the minimum shareholding stake of Tk 100 million is far too high for any sponsor living abroad, particularly in the UK.

“Some people in Bangladesh may have Tk 100 million, but NRBs do not have that amount of money. NRBs living abroad are doing well, but they have probably about a million taka to invest.”

“If you go any higher than a million pounds or dollars, you will get fewer shareholders from the NRB community living in the US, Europe or the Middle East,” he told The Daily Star in an interview.

He said the investment threshold should be lowered. “I think realistically. Many NRBs will not have a 100 million taka. What is more realistic is one million taka. This figure can attract people living in London and other parts of the world.”

The Bangladesh Bank circular says sponsors’ contribution to the share capital of the proposed bank will be required to be out of net worth declared to the concerned tax authorities, contribution out of borrowings shall not be acceptable. It also says tax returns and certificates have to be submitted. He said these clauses would be unnecessarily prohibitive.

“The documentation process will be difficult for many to arrange, as the deadline for submitting their applications is by the end of May,” said the 45-year-old.

He said tackling these governance issues now would, in the long run, make sure that NRB remittance inflow is usefully targeted into productive investment, like roads and highways and the energy sector, via the bank rather then domestic consumption.

“With these improvements, I am sure many NRBs around the world will apply and happily work with the government of Bangladesh to improve their ancestral homes.”

Qureshi said the condition of NRBs in the Middle East is a matter of concern to every one. “I think they should be assisted by every means possible,” he said, referring to thousands of Bangladeshi migrant workers, who were forced to flee Arab countries, such as Egypt and Libya, following mass uprising.

He said billions of pounds and dollars flow into Bangladesh. “It is useful for the government and it is important for us to use the funds economically.”

More than 70 lakh Bangladeshis live abroad. Remittance added up to nearly $11 billion last fiscal year.

Qureshi said much of the remittance is spent on consumption. “The NRBs must develop a habit of investing on major infrastructure. This kind of a thing is critical. It will help Bangladesh achieve 10 percent GDP growth from 6-7 percent growth, if we can make sure the money enters productive sectors, such as energy, transport, and roads and highways.”

“There is a huge inflow of remittance into Bangladesh. You need to better use the money,” said Qureshi, who holds an MSc degree in Environmental Economics from University College London.

“When I went to Sylhet to my grandparent’s home by car, I remember that the road from Dhaka to Sylhet was very dangerous.”

“Not only should the Dhaka-Sylhet highway be developed, but also other highways in the country. This is something, which I think, a lot of people living abroad would be happy to invest in. I think this is where the NRB bank would be very, very useful.”

The application fee of $15,000 is also a hurdle, he said. “I however will accept that as the money will be used to conduct appropriate verification of the applications.”

He said the bank should focus on clientele, who will have different needs from others, as most live abroad. “The bank’s clientele have to be dealt with differently. The task will be to help them invest in Bangladesh.”

Qureshi, a board member of BRAC UK, an international non-governmental organisation that is a part of the Bangladesh-based BRAC family, said he would be talking to other NRBs to find ways to invest in Bangladesh. “If we can get the details right, it will make a big difference.”

“We will be able to tell you clearly what is needed for the Bangladeshi communities in Rome, London, New York, Paris, California and Washington, if we have major shareholding by NRBs,” he said.

“This could a very good example to show to the rest of the world.”

fazlur.rahman@thedailystar.net

Click here to view the original article

AV If its good enough to elect the Mayor of London, why not our MPs?

IN one of his own recent newspaper columns, Boris Johnson set out his case against the Alternative Vote system (AV), decrying it as a “gigantic fraud”. 

Given his own elevation to the post of Mayor of London was as a result of a form of AV, should we conclude that his mandate rests on the same fraudulent basis?

For me, the debate surrounding AV was launched at the beginning of the year before Boris got in on the act. 

Last January, I found myself debating at the University College London (UCL) Union Society for the motion “This house would vote yes to AV”. I was joined by speaker Jonathan Bartley (“Yes” to fairer votes campaigner) in favour of the motion. 

Dr Robert Mcllveen (author of Policy Exchange’s publication on AV) and Stephen Parkinson (Conservative national organiser of the No2AV campaign) argued against.

Considering Nick Clegg has put his and his party’s reputation (what’s left of it) on the line for this issue, I would ordinarily welcome this opportunity to give him and the Lib Dems a bloody nose.  

However, I would like to commend some of the merits of an AV voting system. The most important for me is that it can open the door to the United Kingdom’s progressive majority, particularly in London. 

Take the City of Westminster, traditionally a Tory stronghold. The most recent election results suggest Labour has a progressive vote greater, in fact, than the Tory vote. With AV, who knows what can be done to change things in central London? 

For me, the biggest prize would be to achieve greater representation of the progressive majority, thereby achieving better representation within our political system. AV can achieve this.

Let’s be clear about what exactly is being proposed in this referendum on May 5. 

The idea is a voting system where instead of just placing an X against the name of the candidate you want to win, voters will be asked to list in numbered priority their preferred candidates (1, 2, 3 etc).

This is what the electorate were asked to do for the Mayoral contest in London in 2008 and will be asked to do again in 2012 at the next London Mayoral elections, with just two votes known as the supplementary vote (SV), a variant of AV.

The proposed “national” system of AV for MPs will give you several more opportunities to number preferred candidates. To achieve a majority vote, politicians would have to widen their appeal beyond their own core vote. It is, and can no longer be, the case that MPs can scrape by with the endorsement of only 20-30 per cent of the electorate. 

The case against AV is sometimes based on ignorance of the system being advocated.   

This is not a vote for Proportional Representation (PR) as the No campaigners would have you believe.

PR is what we unfortunately have with the election of MEPs in the European Parliament and also list members for the London Assembly, like myself.

Hence many of the arguments deployed for a No vote are not in fact anti-AV, but anti-PR.

AV doesn’t break the constituency link either. In fact, this issue is being addressed by a different bit of legislation, where it’s proposed to change the boundaries of the present seats by getting rid of 50 parliamentary seats. 

Also, AV doesn’t help small parties as it works against extremists like the BNP as moderate party supporters tend to transfer between each other. 

It is often argued that AV would result in more coalitions. In fact, as it is the candidate with the most votes who wins, it actually derives from the same family of systems as FPTP in the UK. 

Therefore, hung parliaments are not  more likely. As was  demonstrated by our own most recent election results, FPTP has not given the UK any special immunity to hung parliaments.  

So, AV keeps the best features of the current system – members representing their local communities with decisive results – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving the electorate more say on who their local MP will be. 

Returning to the debate on the motion at UCL, it was passed by 40 votes in favour and 28 against with 11 abstentions. I was certainly pleased to note that our students, our future electorate, had voted in favour of the motion, hopefully giving a good steer to the national debate. 

Perhaps, given the topic, we should have allowed the 11 abstentions a second preference votes, which may have then given the Yes vote something nearer the 50 per cent approval that AV would ideally give elected politicians!

I think the debate at UCL shows that the argument for AV can be won. In London, we are already accustomed to a form of AV because of the way we elect our Mayor of London every four years. 

If AV is good enough to elect the Mayor of London, then why not our Members of Parliament? 

Murad Qureshi is a Labour London Assembly member and lives in Marylebone. 

Click here to view the full article

FORUM: If it’s good enough for Boris…

Given his own elevation to the post of Mayor of London was as a result of a form of AV, should we conclude that his mandate rests on the same fraudulent basis?

The debate surrounding AV was launched at the beginning of the year before Boris got in on the act. 

Last January, I found myself debating at the University College London (UCL) Union Society for the motion “This house would vote yes to AV”. I was joined by  speaker Jonathan Bartley (“Yes” to fairer votes campaigner) in favour of the motion. 

Dr Robert Mcllveen (author of Policy Exchange’s publication on AV) and Stephen Parkinson (Conservative national organiser of the No2AV campaign) argued against.

Considering Nick Clegg has put his and his party’s reputation (what’s left of it) on the line for this issue, I would ordinarily welcome this opportunity to give him and the Lib Dems a bloody nose.  

However, I would like to commend some of the merits of an AV voting system. The most important for me is that it can open the door to the United Kingdom’s progressive majority, particularly in London. 

Take the City of Westminster, traditionally a Tory stronghold. The most recent election results suggest Labour has a progressive vote greater, in fact, than the Tory vote. With AV, who knows what can be done to change things in central London? 

For me, the biggest prize would be to achieve greater representation of the progressive majority, thereby achieving better representation within our political system. AV can achieve this.

Let’s be clear about what exactly is being proposed in this referendum on May 5. 

The idea is a voting system where instead 

of just placing an X against the name of the candidate you want to win, voters will be asked to list in numbered priority their preferred candidates (1, 2, 3 etc).

This is what the electorate were asked to do for the Mayoral contest in London in 2008 and will be asked to do again in 2012 at the next London Mayoral elections. 

The proposed “national” system is a variant of AV with just two votes, known as Supplementary Vote (SV). To achieve a majority vote, politicians would have to widen their appeal beyond their own core vote. It is, and can no longer be, the case that MPs can scrape by with the endorsement of only 20-30 per cent of the electorate. 

The case against AV is sometimes based on ignorance of the system being advocated.   

This is not a vote for Proportional Representation (PR) as the No campaigners would have you believe.

PR is what we unfortunately have with the election of MEPs in the European Parliament and also list members for the London Assembly.

Hence many of the arguments deployed for a No vote are not in fact anti-AV, but anti-PR.

AV doesn’t break the constituency link either. In fact, this issue is being addressed by a different bit of legislation, where it’s proposed to change the boundaries of the present seats by getting rid of 50 parliamentary seats. 

Also, AV doesn’t help small parties as it works against extremists like the BNP as moderate party supporters tend to transfer between each other. 

It is often argued that AV would result in more coalitions. In fact, as it is the candidate with the most votes who wins, it actually derives from the same family of systems as FPTP in the UK. 

Therefore, hung parliaments are not  more likely. As was  demonstrated by our own most recent election results, FPTP has not given the UK any special immunity to hung parliaments.  

So, AV keeps the best features of the current system – members representing their local communities with decisive results – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving the electorate more say on who their local MP will be. 

Returning to the debate on the motion at UCL, it was passed by 40 votes in favour and 28 against with 11 abstentions. I was certainly pleased to note that our students, our future electorate, had voted in favour of the motion, hopefully giving a good steer to the national debate. 

Perhaps, given the topic, we should have allowed the 11 abstentions a second preference votes, which may have then given the Yes vote something nearer the 50 per cent approval that AV would ideally give elected politicians!

I think the debate at UCL shows that the argument for AV can be won. In London, we are already accustomed to a form of AV because of the way we elect our Mayor of London every four years. 

If AV is good enough to elect the Mayor of London, then why not our Members of Parliament? 

Click here to view full article

Mayor’s 200,000 green homes target in doubt

In 2009 the Mayor set a target of greening between 200,000 – 500,000 homes by March 2012. But only 8,936 homes have been treated so far, with just 74 treated since July 2010.

Labour’s London Assembly environment spokesman, Murad Qureshi, says the Mayor is danger of missing his ambitious target.

Murad Qureshi said:

 "In 2009, the Mayor promised at least 200,000 homes would be greened by the end of his first term. But he’s not even managed 100 in the last year. It’s difficult to see from this to 200,000 in less than a year."

The Mayor’s Climate Change and Mitigation and Energy strategy sets a target of treating 200,000 homes by 2012 under the RE:NEW scheme. The scheme is supposed to deliver make homes more energy and water efficient through measure such as loft and cavity wall insulation.

Murad added: "With rising fuel bills and the widening energy gap, this scheme is a vital lifeline in helping householders reduce their fuel consumption particularly for those on low incomes. The Mayor has to start being more honest with Londoners about what he will actually achieve. If it has taken him two years to achieve just 4 per cent of his target, it’s going to be a big ask to get to 200,000."

In a written answer Boris Johnson said a total of "8,936 homes have been retrofitted to date under the RE:NEW programme". But just 74 were treated since July 2010. 817 of were treated between April and July 2009 and 8,045 between November 2009 and July 2010.

Ends.

Notes

Murad Qureshi is a Londonwide Assembly Member and vice chair of the London Assembly Environment committee.

For further information please contact Nikki Salih on 020 7983 4400

Evening Standard waging war against Chelsea FC

I noticed a very unusual occurrence during my customary read of the Evening Standard on my way home from City Hall last Friday evening; they ran with the same story on both the front and back pages.
 
It is pretty rare for one story to dominate both the front and back pages with even more pages inside. What made this occurrence even more eye catching was the fact that only the Evening Standard led with the story which did not feature anywhere else. The story: the huge investment Abramovich has ploughed into Chelsea FC.
 
Because of my own football loyalties l am not someone who would ordinarily be sympathetic to Chelsea FC, particularly after their mid-week game at Stamford Bridge.  However, the prominence afforded to this story by the ES may suggest that there is more to it then meets the eye.  Could it be that the owner of the ES, Alexander Lebedev and Abramovich have had a recent run-in? They do after all have a lot in common; both Russian billionaires who made their fortunes at much the same time in Moscow.
 
This may just be an extension of a personal battle between what are undoubtedly two business giants, both used to getting their own way. If so, then Chelsea’s failing attempts to secure the dream Championship title was a great opportunity for Lebedev to rub salt into a sore that Abramovich is clearly developing.
 
I think this may be one to watch and see if it develops any further, but, in my mind at least, the over spun nature of the story with a front and back page assault of Chelsea FC can only be attributed to some sort of Russian connection.