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.

As chair of the London Waterways Commission (LWC) l have noticed that Londoners’ interest in their waterways has been greatly enhanced in recent times. You only have to look at the great success of cultural events like the annual Thames Festival on the South Bank, the Canal Cavalcade in Little Venice and the Angel Festival in City Road Basin to appreciate that we are increasingly identifying with our waterways. Some have even suggested that this marks the revival of Londoners’ spiritual relationship with the Thames, as identified by Peter Ackroyd in his book Thames: Sacred River.

However, while Londoners have rediscovered the Thames and the canals, they are less aware of the lost rivers that run under our city. For example how many of us know that in central London the river Westbourne flows into the Serpentine in Hyde Park, as well as the River Tyburn into the Regent’s Park lakes? Or that the river Fleet runs from Hampstead Heath to the City? For that matter how many residents of Brent know that their borough is named after a river that runs beneath it? Since becoming chair of the LWC l myself have discovered rivers south of the Thames that I did not previously know existed, such as the Quaggy in Lewisham and the Wandle in Wandsworth.

Hopefully, we are now witnessing an awakening of interest in this issue. Last week l spoke at a public meeting organised by the Friends of Regents Canal, Islington branch, where the topic of discussion was the City Road Basin development, yet in a contribution from the floor we were urged not to forget the river Fleet as it flows through Camden and Islington and major interchanges like Kings Cross. In a recent letter to the Guardian, it was revealed that Housmans, the celebrated radical bookshop in Caledonian Road, regularly suffers the flooding of its basement due to its situation above the Fleet.

So l welcome the recent launch of the London Rivers Restoration Plan (LRAP) by the Environment Agency. Under this plan it is intended that we will have 15 km of river restored and 14 channels uncovered over the next six years. LRAP’s website will also become the “one point of contact” for all the river restoration works occurring in London, keeping Londoners informed about the various stages reached in their development. This will certainly help with the planning process and contribute to sustainable regeneration through the implementation of the Blue Ribbon policies within the London Plan.

Yet when LRAP is completed 70 per cent of London’s 600 km of river network will still be covered over. Perhaps it is time we identified these hidden rivers in some way, particularly the Westbourne, Tyburn and Fleet which flow unseen through central London boroughs like the City of Westminster, Camden and Islington.

My proposal is that these hidden waterways should be marked by simple blue lines along the course of the rivers, similar to the existing yellow or red lines on the roads. The blue line markings would tell Londoners where these waterways are and inform people about this important but neglected aspect of our urban landscape.

I trust l will get support from local people, so that some day soon we may have blues lines going through Central London showing clearly where the rivers are buried beneath our roads and buildings.

Finally, for those interested in the history of our lost rivers there is no better reference then Nicholas Barton’s excellent book The Lost Rivers of London.

Murad Qureshi AM, Labour’s London Assembly environment spokesperson, has called on Mayor Boris Johnson to ensure that business members of the Green500 initiative back up warm words with action to improve London’s environment.

Green500, the brainchild of former Mayor Ken Livingstone and Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, aims to provide member organisations with practical advice on how to reduce their carbon emissions and reward those that do so with recognition. Today’s City Hall event, hosted by Mayor Johnson, congratulated 17 members of Green500 who have reduced their carbon emissions.

Murad, who is vice Chair of the Assembly Environment Committee said: "Green500 has the potential to make a real difference for London in the battle against climate change so I’m pleased that the new administration has carried this forward. However, this needs to involve more transparency and evidence of clear actions taken. There are lots of unspecified ‘targets’ being met and back patting going on but to properly inspire London businesses and individuals to look at their own carbon footprint these organisations need to clarify what they are doing and give unambiguous evidence of their results."

He added: "This would make it easier for ordinary people to relate to – we all have a contribution to make to the environment and this programme needs to be more inspirational. For example, Chelsea FC are members of Green500 – what if they were to lead the way in getting all London clubs to travel to domestic matches by rail where possible, for example? Lots of football fans will relate to that and think about how they can make changes themselves. It’s a good start but we need to develop it with specific targets and actions, rather than just bland ‘carbon action plans’ which don’t mean much to the average member of the public."

Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East have sent a letter to Foreign Secretary David Miliband calling for action to stop the killing of civilians in Gaza. I am among the 53 signatories, who include Labour MPs, MEPs, peers and members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly.

Dear David

Re: Gaza crisis

Three hundred people have lost their lives in Gaza over the last three days. In any conflict and any battle in today’s world such a wide scale loss of life would be met with deep despair and a sense of failure.

We are writing together with the new organisation Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East to thank you for your clear statement that the number of lives lost in Gaza over the last few days is unacceptable. We fully support your call for a cessation of violence and ask that you also make a statement as soon as Parliament resumes. We will be calling for an urgent debate, which I hope you will support, to enable the voice of the House of Commons to be heard.

The Israeli Defence Force has entered Gaza with extreme force and without apparent concern or apology for the loss of civilian life. We urge you to endorse the statement by the UN Secretary General that the Israeli government’s actions are “excessive”. On Monday the UN estimated the number of deaths at 320, of whom 62 were women and children, against two deaths on the Israeli side. More recent estimates have put the death toll at 347 with more than 800 wounded.

This development is deeply concerning both in itself and in the longer term. We believe that there can be no military solution and would further suggest that excessive military force of this kind is bound to be counterproductive and will inevitably sharpen the sense of injustice in the region.

The conflict in Gaza should not be seen in isolation. We are concerned by the continuing expansion of settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem , by the confiscation of Palestinian land, by the proliferation of checkpoints and by other restrictions on Palestinian movement. In relative terms, the West Bank is peaceful at present, but further tensıons are being stoked up which could foreseeable overspill into violence.

As we enter this bleak period, probably the most dangerous since 1967, we ask you to continue to send a clear signal from this country that excessive military force is counterproductive and will not resolve the conflict. We also ask you to do all in your power to bring about an immediate ceasefire and to ensure that humanitarian aid is urgently allowed into Gaza. As a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Convention we also ask you to ensure that the UK takes a leading role in requiring international law to be upheld.

Yours sincerely

Martin Linton MP, Chair, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Rıchard Burden MP, Chair of Policy Committee, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Phyllis Starkey MP, Vice-chair, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Janet Anderson MP
Roger Berry MP
Roberta Blackman-Woods MP
Frank Cook MP
Michael Connarty MP
David Drew MP
Paul Flynn MP
Hywel Francis MP
Roger Godsiff MP
Nia Griffith MP
Peter Kilfoyle MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Tom Levitt MP
Judy Mallaber MP
Christine McCafferty MP
Andrew MacKinlay MP
Nick Palmer MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Andrew Slaughter MP
Dr Howard Stoke MP
David Taylor MP
Joan Walley MP
Mike Wood MP
Jim Dobbin MP
Peter Soulsby MP
Lyn Brown MP
Brian Iddon MP
Jim Devine MP
Hywel Francis MP
John MacDonnell MP
Neil Gerrard MP
Lord David Lipsey
Baroness Brenda Dean
Lord Andrew McIntosh
Baroness Rosalie Wilkins
Richard Simpson MSP
Frank McAveety MSP
Marlyn Glen MSP
Alan Davies Welsh AM
Murad Qureshi GLA
John Biggs GLA
John Austin MP
Christine Chapman AM
Eric Ittsley MP
Rob Morris MP
Baroness Anne Gibson
Harry Cohen MP
David Chaytor MP
Lord Alf Dubs
Virendra Sharma MP
Sara Linton, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East (Acting Secretary)
Michelle Harris, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Mark McDonald, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East

A source of major embarrassment for me since my election to the London Assembly in 2004 has been that the government in my ancestral home was a right-wing alliance between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami. So it was with much trepidation that l sent off over the Xmas break to assist the opposition in the general election there on the 29th of December. Little did l expect to see the landslide that resulted against this right-wing alliance, as Bangladeshis voted in their millions for the progressive secularism offered by the Awami League.

The election had been delayed by two years after the BNP-Jamaat alliance had attempted to rig the elections with a false electoral roll, providing an opening for the military to intervene and impose their caretaking government of technocrats. So there was great enthusiasm for a return to democratic rule. On the morning of the 29th of December, even before the polling stations opened at 8.00 am, people were queuing up to cast their vote. By the end of the day over 80 per cent of the Bangladeshi electorate had voted in what turned out to be one of the most peaceful elections in the country’s history, when people had feared much worse.

The BNP-Jamaat alliance tried to garner votes with their campaign to “save Islam“ but the electorate overwhelmingly rejected the claim that Islam was under threat. They turned instead to the Awami League, who promised to counter militancy and religious extremism and establish a liberal democratic society. This was particularly evident among the first-time voters who made up 30 per cent of the electorate. They were a key element in the political tidal wave that swept away the BNP-Jamaat bloc, with the Awami League and its allies winning 263 of the 299 seats in the Jatiya Sangsad, the Bangladesh parliament.

I spent polling day in Sylhet, the area of the country that most Bangladeshis in the UK come from. The district has 19 seats and the crucial battle was in Sylhet I with a contest between two former finance ministers, Saifur Rahman of the BNP and Abdul Muhith of the Awami League. On the morning of election day the Awami League were confident that they would win 12 seats, but when the results were announced in the evening they had taken all of 17. The real bonus was the election of Shafiqur Chowdhury of the Awami League, an NRB (non-resident Bangladeshi) from London, in the Sylhet II constituency, where he defeated a BNP “tough guy” by a majority of over 3,000. The Sylhet results proved to be no isolated victory, as at the same time news came through that we had won all 20 seats in the capital, Dhaka.

The voters had also overwhelmingly rejected alleged war criminals like Nizami and Saeedi, who contested the election on the BNP-Jamaat ticket. This was the result of successful campaigns in the vibrant civil society of Dhaka. These defeats brought the loudest cheer of the evening when the results were announced in the Hafiz Centre, Sylhet Town. Some will say that the trial of these war criminals is the first step to the recovery of a wounded nation and expectations are high that the government will finally deal with this albatross around the neck of the nation, once and for all.

The Bangladeshi electorate has left no one in any doubt what their choice is here, giving a near fatal blow to the Islamist political parties. Plainly put, this is an overwhelming mandate against religious fundamentalism in Bangladesh. The “Talibanisation” of the country, which some commentators aboard had identified as a threat in the past few years, is hardly a realistic prospect now, if it ever was. This is not to deny that the political assassinations that were attempted, such as the August 2004 grenade attack on a rally addressed by Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina, were dark chapters in the life of the previous government, but it would take a lot more than that to Talibanise the Bangladeshi democratic spirit.

The shift towards secularism will clearly have some impact on politics within the Bangladeshi community in the UK, which have for some years taken a predominantly conservative-religious form. This is now badly out of kilter with politics “back home”, which are represented by those of us from a secular-progressive background. Policy wonks in government at local, regional and central level should take note of this development urgently and not be taken for a ride by those supposedly representing the community.

Overall, the Bangladesh general election was a resounding endorsement of democracy and an emphatic victory for pluralism in the world’s second largest Muslim-majority country. Thus, for some, the vote was as historic as the vote in December 1970, which led to the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan. That was the election l watched as a small kid when my parents attempted to settle back in our ancestral home. So politics in Bangladesh have now come the full circle, back to where we should be, with the political optimism that greeted the formation of a new state nearly four decades ago now reborn in the 21st century.

Awami League supporters cheer election results

Last month the Better Air Quality in Asia (BAQ) biennial conference was held in Bangkok. It highlighted one of the most pressing issues for the mega cities of Asia – the need to improve air quality while urbanisation increases apace and along with it energy consumption and vehicle growth. Air quality in Asia is certainly improving but is still far above World Health Organisation limits. Particulate matter (dust) is the main pollutant of concern while ozone is increasingly becoming a problem.

While the BAQ conference was taking place, one particular Asian capital faced some very severe air pollution problems – Delhi with its winter “fog”, which came early this year. One of the first things that strikes visitors to India is the low-lying soup that hangs over its capital, as the early morning moisture mingles with fumes and dust to form a cloud that lasts all day. As a result, Delhi has been ranked as one of the worst polluted cities by the World Bank.

This fog often delays flights at the Indira Gandhi International Airport because of the poor visibility, which at the peak of winter falls to just 50 metres. Hospitals are also recording an increase in patients with respiratory problems, with doctors prescribing oxygen nebulisers for young children suffering “bad air” asthma attacks. We even find professional Delhites leaving the city to spare their children from pollution-related illnesses.

India’s fast expanding economy and growing prosperity have led to an increase in the number of cars that clog Delhi’s roads. Delhi is now estimated to have 5.5 million cars, an increase of over 57% in eight years. This steep rise in car use has rolled back the gains achieved by introducing compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, particularly among buses and motorised rickshaws. The problem also faces cities like Kolkata and Dhaka, where similar gains from CNG have been made, only to be negated by the huge growth in car ownership.

The Central Pollution Control Board of Delhi has suggested two explanations for what it calls “the smoke phenomenon”. While it maintains that levels of sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide have fallen considerably over the past eight years (though the latter is still above the prescribed level), it argues that adverse meteorological conditions mean pollution is not dispersed and collects at lower levels. Secondly it suggests that a rise in  particulate matter has been registered, put down largely to construction work for the Commonwealth Games and Delhi Metro.

We in London have faced similar problems. It is over half a century since the Clean Air Act of 1956 cleared London skies of smog. Faced with major air pollution – and in particular, the Great Smog of 1952, which killed some 4,000 people in London – the government of the day applied mandatory Smokeless Zones to British cities. Within just three years, the use of coal disappeared from our larger cities and Londoners breathed more easily. So effective legislation can make a big difference.

Asian cities have two central challenges to be considered. First, how can cities realise their economic and social development goals while at the same time minimising the use of fossil fuels, directly associated with air pollution? And if fossil fuels are used in the future, how can their combustion be carried out in the most clean and efficient manner? Moreover, we need the right mix of technology and demand management in reducing air pollution.

Advances have been made in technologies like fuel economy, energy efficiency and the use of cleaner (low sulphur) fuels in the last 20 years, which allow for considerable reductions in air pollution levels. But there is a danger that reductions achieved through these cleaner technologies will be offset by the rapid growth in the number of emission sources, as we have already noted is the case in some south Asian cities. Cleaner technologies will need to be combined with non-technological, demandmanagement approaches of which the most obvious is investment in public transport.

Murad Qureshi AM
Deputy Chair of Environment Committee
London Assembly
London

Published in the Economic & Political Weekly, India’s premier journal for comment on social affairs and research in social sciences (pdf here) and in China Daily.

One of the first things Boris Johnson did in May, as the new mayor of London, was to ban the drinking of alcohol on public transport, particularly on the Underground. Previously this had not been an issue much raised by Londoners in my experience, but the ban – and along with it the authority of the mayor – may well come up against its biggest challenge on New Year’s Eve when free travel will be offered on the tubes and buses of London for all the revellers.

It’s a time of year which attracts and encourages a lot of drinking including in public and often on our transport system. So how is Boris going to enforce his ban? Extra police cells could be appropriate, as I suggested in jest at the last Mayor’s Question Time on the 17th of December. Maybe we have time enough for an one-evening amnesty to be put in place. Now this could be a real test of Boris’s mettle and his libertarian credentials, both at the same time!