On Sunday the 6th of October – around 100 people gathered outside the headquarters of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to protest at the papers concerted hate campaign against huge sections of the UK population.

The demonstration, organised by the People’s Assembly, campaign groups and trade union, was called after revelations that the Mail on Sunday had covertly sent one of its reporters into a private memorial for a member of the Miliband family. The decision to send an undercover reporter into a private family occasion followed a scurrilous attack on Ralph Miliband, a highly respected academic, by the Mail on Sunday’s sister paper the Daily Mail.

Commenting from the protest in central London, Owen Jones, political commentator and journalist, said:  “The Miliband family are the latest in a long line of people that have been subjected to the Mail’s venomous attacks on Muslims, migrants, lesbians and gays and trade unionists have all felt the brutal force of the Daily Mail’s vicious and deceitful attacks over many decades .  The Daily Mail doesn’t reflect the Britain I see around me day to today, a Britain where people of different cultures, different faiths and different colours live side by side. The Daily mail can’t stomach the fact that Britain in 2013 goes against every hate fuelled value Paul Dacre and his paper holds. “  

Prior to addressing the rally Lindsey German, Convenor of the Stop the War coalition, said:   “I have experienced first hand the putrid lies and the character assassination of the Mail. The journalistic values of the Daily Mail can best be summed up as never letting the truth get in the way of a good smear.”  

London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi  speaking to the protest said:   “The Miliband affair highlights yet again why self regulation isn’t working. It is beyond comprehension   that the body tasked with upholding press standards , the PCC, can put Paul Dacre in charge of press ethics. The public are demanding a press that is responsible – right now the Mail is exhibiting all the worst excesses of an unregulated press and that urgently needs to be addressed.”

This week, Sir Howard Davies of the Aviation Commission made a speech ruling out catering for unconstrained demand because that would not be consistent with the Committee on Climate Change recommendations on CO2. Yet while this may be the principal environmental concern amongst policy wonks, for Londoners on the doorstep its quite clearly aircraft noise particularly for those in the West London suburbs. 

That’s not surprising given the numbers affected by aircraft noise on the flight approaches going into Heathrow airport where 28 per cent of all people in Europe affected by aircraft noise are living under the Heathrow flight paths. More importantly this week we heard about the ‘link’ between aircraft noise and stroke & heart disease deaths. In a report published in the British Medical Journal, a study of 3.6 million residents near Heathrow Airport suggested the risks were 10-20 per cent higher in areas with the highest levels of aircraft noise. 

Such results clearly imply the siting of airports and consequent exposure to aircraft noise may have direct effects on the health of the surrounding population. We all know only too well of the nuisance aircraft noise can cause but news that it can contribute to deaths as well is a significant development. On the basis of this latest study Sir Howard Davies would do well to concentrate on aircraft noise’s environmental & health impacts in London as much as  any other environmental concerns before making any final conclusions.

With the extension of the coalition government’s “help to buy” scheme beyond new builds to existing properties, it will be interesting to see what the impact of this policy will be in Hounslow. 

We’ve already had new build schemes like Thornbury Road in Isleworth, supported with the “help to buy”, helping to push the price of a property in Hounslow in June to £421,059with an annual price increase of 12.8 per cent.  But this new extension of the programme is unlikely to help the creation of more properties which is the real issue in London.   In fact, there are fears that the likely effect will be to stoke the already existing inflationary pressures in the housing market. 

That’s why Ed Miliband’s proposal of a “use it or lose it” policy is a fair and forceful way to shift 210,000 homes in London which have planning permission but have not yet been built on by developers who for whatever reason choose to land bank instead.  We only have to see the empty sites in Brentford off the Great West Road, to appreciate the extent of the problem in Hounslow alone.  The proposal would allow councils to impose escalating fees on developers who refuse to build, backed up by the threat of compulsory purchase orders for the very worst offenders, giving councils the tools they need to effectively tackle land banking, where developers seek to maximise value and returns by sitting on land instead of building on it. 

Unlike the coalition’s policy, this is much more likely to produce new housing and unlikely to create further inflationary pressure in the housing market as most experts suggest will be the result.  The job of opponents to the government’s proposals is to ensure that the message about the likely cause and effects of such a policy are understood by the public.  This latest extension of “help to buy” is not helpful.  Instead what London needs is “help to build”!.

London wide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM calls for an end to land banking in London and supports proposals whereby developers will have to use or lose their planning permission. The proposals would help tackle land banking in London by unlocking the 210,000 homes with planning permission but which aren’t being built and would also create the new supply the capital desperately needs. 

The proposals would allow councils to impose escalating fees on developers who refuse to build, backed up by the threat of compulsory purchase orders for the very worst offenders. This would give councils the tools they need to effectively tackle land banking, where developers maximise value by sitting on land instead of building on it. 

The average price for a property in Westminster in June this year was £1,383,459. The annual change in house prices has increased by 19.4 per cent. 

London wide Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi AM said:

“I welcome these proposals, which outlined some ground-breaking proposals to tackle London’s housing crisis and build the homes that London needs. 

“Use it or lose it planning permission is a fair yet forceful way to shift the 210,000 homes in London which have planning permission but are not being built. Under the current system, developers find it more profitable to sit on land than to build on it. This is an innovative response to the land banking that is much to blame for our housing crisis. 

“The national house building programme is also great news for the capital. London must already accommodate a rapidly rising population, but if the rest of the southeast fails to meet its own needs, particularly for affordable housing, then the pressure on London could be even greater.” 

Notes 

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a London wide Assembly Member.
2. Labour leader Ed Miliband gave his speech at Labour party conference on 24 September 2013.
3. The figures for the average house prices can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/counties/html/county39.stm
4. The Greater London Authority’s report Barriers to Housing Delivery identified 210,000 potential homes in London which have planning permission but aren’t being built (GLA, http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/barriers-to-housing-delivery)
5. The Department for Communities and Local Government says only 18,000 homes were completed in London last year (DCLG, Table 253, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building)

Campaigning against PO closures in Pimlico

In the Postal Services Act 2011, the Coalition government split Royal Mail from the network of Post Offices branches, which traders as Post Office Ltd.

Post Office Ltd is to remain in the public sector, because it is dependent upon a subsidy from the government – £103 million in the last year.

Separation makes the Post Office network very vulnerable. A privatised Royal Mail will not wish to prioritise the use of loss-making public company,

A ten-year commercial agreement was struck between the two companies on January 2012. But the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has accepted that the contract allows for changes in commercial circumstances, and it contains a review clause after five years.

This is surely an invitation for a privately owned Royal Mail to look at other private retailers instead of Post Office Ltd.

Already Royal Mail will be ending the provision of IT and finance services to the Post Office by the end September 2014.

No where else in the world has this separation beem made.

Make no mistake – what ever assurances the Coalition government is now offering, Post Office branches are under serious threat.

A third of Post Office revenues – around £350 million a year – come from Royal Mail.

In London, the proposed reforms have the potentially disproportionate impact on Londoners, as six Post Offices have been identified for outright closure, as part of a plan to close or franchise 76 crown Post Offices.

Rural Post Offices are particularly at risk.  Only 23% of these offices generate more than £40,000 pounds revenue a year.

Equally, in many poorer wards in urban centres, the local post office plays a crucial role in sustaining small businesses in their vicinity.

The Coalition government could have introduced a statutory obligation for Royal mail, as the universal service provider, to use local Post Office branches

But it didn’t. Now we must campaign to ensure a future for the Post Office network. This can only be achieved if we defeat privatisation.

In 2015 our Labour government will have to reintegrate the Post Office network into a publicly owned Royal Mail. Otherwise there is no guarantee for the future of your local Post Office.

This is an ideologically driven privatisation that not event Margaret Thatcher would consider. That is what we are deal with this coalition government.

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.