Powdered milk delivered to empty warehouse in Gaza on the Miles for Smiles convoy

Whilst reporting to the Egyptian Association of UK AGM last night about my recent trip to the Gaza strip via Cairo, l spoke about my surprise  at how the Rafah crossing was not as open as we’d imagined from our shores and indeed how difficult it is still, to get through if you’re a Palestinian.

The previous weekend, l’d visited as part of a humanitarian convoy of medical supplies sent out by “Miles of Smiles” via El-Arish port where a dozen European NGOs moved 30 tonnes of medical supplies and 12 ambulances.  I along with 62 other activitists picked up the supplies from the port and transported it all to the Gaza strip with the consent of the Egyptian authorities. (and subsequently even the Israeli military forces).

When we first entered the Gaza strip, it felt like an open prison, which was how our Prime Minister described it last year.  Movement through the Rafah crossing was slow for most, but in particular for the Palestinians.  The movement of goods and aid via the crossing is a vital life line for Palestinians who live in the Gaza strip and who desperately rely on this channel for their basic sustenance.  Not surprisingly, therefore, we were greeted with welcome arms, although the scale of gratitude was something which still took me a little by surprise.

Whilst there, I noticed also that full Rafah crossing rights were being offered to the Palestinians by Egypt as a reward for supporting Hamas & Fatah as the single representative for the Palestinians living in the West Bank & Gaza. Rumour has it, that there is strong disagreement over who will be the Prime Minister in this region.  What ever happens, one thing for certain is that Egypt will play a key role in the survival of the Gaza strip through the management of the Rafah crossing.  However, sadly, the process is a lot slower then we realise from afar and therefore, making it more open, much quicker would make a real difference to the lives of Palestinians living in the Gaza strip.

London Assembly Members will urge the government to launch a Berlin-style low emissions zone before the 2012 Olympic Games, requiring cars to display a coloured window sticker indicating their impact on air quality, which would allow certain vehicles to be banned from highly polluted zones.

Murad Qureshi, chairman of the assembly’s environment committee, told BusinessGreen he is planning to contact the Department for Transport or DVLA to look at how a national classification system of vehicles’ emission levels could operate.

Some members of the committee decided to pursue the idea yesterday, after Transport for London (TfL) and the City of London published separate and conflicting studies into the predicted success of a central Low Emissions Zone (LEZ).

The City of London‘s report showed that a very low emission zone would be effective in cutting pollution and meeting European Union limits of PM10, by allowing only the cleanest vehicles to enter central London.

Significantly, the City’s study also found that a central LEZ could meet EU nitrogen dioxide limits by a 2015 deadline, 10 years earlier than Defra has predicted. However, this would only be achieved if the scheme was tightened further to permit only the cleanest vehicles, classified as Euro 6 standard, in the zone.

However, the City of London’s report conflicted with a separate study by TfL, which showed that the economic costs of a inner LEZ would outweigh the environmental benefits.

Kulveer Ranger, the Mayor’s director of environment, said TfL had shown that a central LEZ was unnecessary. "[It] would be a sledge-hammer to crack a nut in policy terms, delivering minimal benefits to air quality at a high cost to London’s drivers and businesses," he said.

However, the committee doubted TfL’s results because it had failed to consider the health benefits of such a scheme. Simon Birkett, founder and director of Clean Air in London, said TfL’s report was flawed.

"It ignores completely: health benefits; the need to comply cost effectively with legal deadlines; and the need to avoid transport chaos during the 2012 Olympic Games," he said.

TfL also refused to examine a scheme that would be enforced using window stickers because the UK does not have a national vehicle classification scheme based on air quality.

German law allows its cities to implement environmental zones (Umweltzonen) in which vehicles may be banned from travelling in areas of high PM pollution. The zones use colour-coded windscreen stickers to identify the pollution class of vehicles and are enforced manually. Cities may choose which pollution classes are banned and when.

Qureshi said TfL had failed to examine every option and he would now contact  the government to see if London could implement a Berlin-style scheme.

"We have heard differing views on what could and should be done to tackle polluting vehicles. We will now pursue this with government to establish whether a Berlin-style scheme would be possible for London," he said.

Darren Johnson, Green Party assembly member, also urged the Mayor to introduce a central LEZ in time for the London 2012 Olympic Games.

"The report from the City of London proves that a very Low Emission Zone would reduce pollution, improve the health of Londoners and enable us to avoid European fines," he said.

"The Mayor should get on with implementing such a scheme in time for the Olympic Games. London needs urgent action and only allowing the cleanest vehicles into central London is the best solution we have."

Click here to view original article

On April 12, the London Ambulance Service announced that it would be cutting 890 jobs. This is a result of the Conservative-led Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

Over the next five years, £53 million is to be removed from a proposed budget of £262 million – a 21 per cent cut. As 80 per cent of London Ambulance Services costs are staff, such savings are not possible without job losses. So 560 jobs will be cut from ambulance crews – who are as frontline as they come. A further 330 posts will be removed from the management and support services.

These job cuts, equating to nearly 18 per cent of the total of highly trained staff, come in a climate of rising demand, with emergency calls up by 43,500 in 2010 from 2009. That’s a 4.5 per cent annual increase in demand. This is part of a continued increase in demand, which has seen a 30 per cent rise between 2000 and 2008.

The London Ambulance Service is probably the capital’s busiest emergency service. In 2009, it responded to nearly one million calls compared to the London Fire Brigade’s 330,000 responses to emergency calls. The Olympics are likely to place further demands next summer.

London’s emergency services are also under threat because of the ongoing financial woes of Assetco, the owners of London’s fire engines, which looks to be heading into administration.

A recent parliamentary question tabled by Hayes and Harlington Labour MP John McDonnell reminded the Government that: “What is happening could put fire safety in London at risk”.

Against this backdrop of rising demand, planned cuts and ailing service providers, I asked the London Mayor when he was first made aware of cuts to the ambulance service and what, if anything, he was doing to mitigate their effects.

Boris Johnson declined to answer the question, insisting that he was not accountable for the National Health Service or the London Ambulance Service. Certainly if his friends in the coalition are not prepared to keep him in the loop about impending cuts, then clearly he won’t have the opportunity to make a case against them.

Yet the Mayor has been given a key role in London’s emergency planning in the run-up to the 2012 Olympic Games, working with the London Resilience Partnership and London Regional Resilience Forum. And he is currently in discussions about having a greater role in overseeing the London Ambulance Service as he has with other emergency services in the capital.

His response to my second question was a load of flannel about having been reassured by NHS London and the London Ambulance Service that these cuts can be managed while maintaining the high quality service expected by patients.

So much for the “Stalingrad” style of defence of London’s public services promised by Boris Johnson – services which voters were led to believe would be ring-fenced. The Mayor has failed to protect vital public services and is clearly acquiescing in the cuts agenda of the coalition Government.

Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly

Click here to view the full article

A not so dissimilar thing happened when the American Robert Zoellick walked (some would say strolled) into the World Bank job when Paul Wolfowitz resigned. So the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are right to challenge this and the continued duopoly of Europe and the US over the IMF and the World Bank respectively.

The IMF and the World Bank were founded as the two main financial organizations of the post-war economic restructuring. Though their roles have changed over time, their symbolism remains constant, particularly in asserting the importance of economic cooperation against isolationism.

However, this principal should be extended further so that the choice of leaders at their head becomes more transparent and open rather than a political stitch up. We could for example, learn from the appointment of the director general of the World Trade Organization.

This was a hotly contested battle the last time with the two leading candidates splitting their term between Michael Moore of New Zealand and Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand.

However, it is not only the structural nature of the IMF, which has been called into question. It should also reflect on its stagnant economic ideology.

Take for example the response to the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98. During the 1990s, the IMF developed an economic philosophy whereby it issued large rescue loans contingent on extensive “conditionality” generally including tight fiscal policy, widespread privatization and other structural reform.

Namely, most fund members believe in markets and market-based solutions to problems, which is quite different from the interventionist instincts of many in Asia.

The application of this philosophy in the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98 caused lingering resentment among some emerging market borrowers forced to undertake extensive medium-term restructuring of their economies in return for short-term crisis loans.

Added to this mix is the rapidly evolving global economy, which has changed radically particularly with the rise of the emerging economies. For example, the huge US current account deficit is financed by the inflow of surplus savings from countries such as China.

According to the IMF’s own statistics, the share of the EU in global output and purchase power parity will shrink from 25 percent in 2000 to 18 percent in 2015 reflecting well the growth in South-South trade particularly between India and China.

Appointing an IMF CEO from outside Europe would be a belated but significant recognition of this shift in economic influence. Indeed the G7 forum of the main industrialized economies has naturally expanded to become G20, to reflect this change.

Is it not time, therefore, for the IMF and World Bank to do the same with its share-holding make up? On the IMF Executive Board the US and EU countries are dominant with their respective 17 and 32 percent share blocks.

How then, can the Dutch continue to sustain a similar shareholding to India?

Also the leading candidate is not without baggage. The first thing to land in the IMF in-tray for the new CEO is the impending Euro zone crisis again.

Lagarde has a public record of defending the indefensible according to the Economist magazine, as she has already played a central role in forming the Euro zone’s response to its debt crisis.

Here the IMF would have to be an impartial arbiter of good economic policy and thus the only organization, which could force a rethink of the Euro zone strategy toward Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Could the poacher really become game keeper and retain creditability on this critical issue?

This when it is regarded that the IMF has been soft on Europe so far and a lot tougher with Asian countries during its financial crisis in the late 1990s.

So with the 10th of June deadline already passed, a stitch-up would truly be a disgrace. Such powerful and influential international posts like this should be filled according to merit.

Otherwise, what’s the difference between this selection process and the FIFA election of its “President for Life”, Sepp Blatter, which we recently witnessed?

At least each country’s football federation shared an equal vote, as opposed to the share percentage bias enjoyed by the US and Europe on the IMF Executive Board. This must change as well, but first Europe’s monopoly on the IMF leadership needs to end.

If it refuses to change, then its very relevance within the global economy will inevitably be called into question, particularly with the increasingly relevant and influential emerging economies.

Click here to view the full article

On Friday (10th June), the nominations for candidates to head the International Monetary Fund (IMF) closed with France’s Christine Lagarde the favourite – and what a travesty in view of what’s happening in the world economy, argues a London Assembly member.

Since the scandal surrounding the resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) broke, you’d be forgiven for thinking the inevitable because judging by the glowing words in leading papers across Europe and the US, it appears that it is a fait accompli that it will be Ms Lagarde, Finance Minister of France who will be replacing him.  
A not so dissimilar thing happened when the American Robert Zoellick walked (some would say strolled) into the World Bank job when Paul Wolfowitz resigned.  So the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are right to challenge this and the continued duopoly of Europe and the USA over the IMF and the World Bank respectively. 
The IMF & the World Bank were founded as the two main financial organisations of the post-war economic restructuring. Though their roles have changed over time, their symbolism remains constant, particularly in asserting the importance of economic co-operation against isolationism.   However, this principal should be extended further so that the choice of leaders at their head becomes more transparent and open rather then a political stitch up.   We could for example, learn from the appointment of the Director General of the World Trade Organisation. This was a hotly contested battle the last time with the two leading candidates splitting their term between Mr Michael Moore of New Zealand and Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand.
 

However, it is not only the structural nature of the IMF, which has been called into question.  It should also reflect on its stagnant economic ideology. Take for example the response to the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.  During the 1990’s, the IMF developed an economic philosophy whereby it issued large rescue loans contingent on extensive “conditionality” generally including tight fiscal policy, widespread privatisation and other structural reform.  Namely, most fund members believe in markets and market-based solutions to problems, which is quite different from the interventionist instincts of many in Asia. The application of this philosophy in the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98 caused lingering resentment among some emerging market borrowers forced to undertake extensive medium term restructuring of their economies in return for short-term crisis loans.   
 

Added to this mix is the rapidly evolving global economy which has changed radically particularly with the rise of the emerging economies.  For example, the huge US current account deficit is financed by the inflow of surplus savings from countries like China. According to the IMF’s own statistics, the share of the EU in global output and purchase power parity, will shrink from 25 per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2015 reflecting well the growth in South-South trade particularly between India & China. Appointing an IMF MD from outside Europe would be a belated but significant recognition of this shift in economic influence. Indeed the G7 forum of the main industrialised economies has naturally expanded to become G20, to reflect this change.  Is it not time, therefore, for the IMF and World Bank to do the same with its share-holding make up? On the IMF Executive Board the US and European Union countries are dominant with their respective 17 and 32 per cent share blocks.  How then, can the Dutch continue to sustain a similar shareholding to India?
 

Also the leading candidate is not without baggage. The first thing to land in the IMF in-tray for the new MD is the impending Euro zone crisis again.  Ms Lagarde has a public record of defending the indefensible according to the Economist magazine, as she has already played a central role in forming the euro zone’s response to its debt crisis.  Here the IMF would have to be an impartial arbiter of good economic policy and thus the only organisation, which could force a rethink of the euro zone strategy towards Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Could the poacher really become game keeper, and retain creditability on this critical issue? This when it is regarded that the IMF has been soft on Europe so far and a lot tougher with Asian countries during its financial crisis in the late 1990s. 
 

So with just the two candidates now, Lagarde and the mexican central banker Augustin Carstens,  a stitch-up would truly be a disgrace.  Such powerful and influential international posts like this should be filled according to merit. Otherwise, what’s the difference between this selection process and the FIFA election of its “President for Life”, Sepp Blatter which we recently witnessed? 

At least each country’s football federation shared an equal vote, as opposed to the share percentage bias enjoyed by the US and Europe on the IMF Executive Board.  This must change as well, but first Europe’s monopoly on the IMF leadership needs to end.  If it refuses to change, then its very relevance within the global economy will inevitably be called into question, particularly with the increasingly relevant and influential emerging economies.

Click here to view full article

Earlier this year, the European Commission put on hold infringement proceedings by granting the UK until June 11 to submit a revised air quality plan in order to tackle air pollution.  The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) met on the date of the deadline set by the European Commission to submit a revised air quality plan for the capital.

It is expected that the revised plan will include details of a £5m grant announced by the Department for Transport in April some of which could be used to roll out further trials of dust suppressant technologies.

Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, said: "The existing dust suppressant trials in some of the most polluted parts of London haven’t stopped smog alerts happening two months ago in London.  There are simply too many polluting cars on the road.  If Boris Johnson hadn’t abolished the Western Extension Zone and delayed the next phase of the Low emission zone applying to the most polluting vehicles, then it may well have been a very different story by now”

Murad continues:

“All this comes at the same time as it emerged last week in a government consultation document that London is on course to miss the EU deadline for reducing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels leading to even more fines”

If the Commission are not happy with the revised plan, then the capital faces a fine of up to £300m for previously breaching annual limits for the emission of PM10 standards.

Ends

Notes

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

For further information please contact Nikki Salih on 020 7983 4400

Since the scandal surrounding the resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) broke, you’d be forgiven for thinking the inevitable because judging by the glowing words in leading papers across Europe and the US, it appears that it is a fait accompli that it will be Ms Lagarde, Finance Minister of France who will be replacing him.  

A not so dissimilar thing happened when the American Robert Zoellick walked (some would say strolled) into the World Bank job when Paul Wolfowitz resigned.  So the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are right to challenge this and the continued duopoly of Europe and the USA over the IMF and the World Bank respectively. 

The IMF & the World Bank were founded as the two main financial organisations of the post-war economic restructuring. Though their roles have changed over time, their symbolism remains constant, particularly in asserting the importance of economic co-operation against isolationism.   However, this principal should be extended further so that the choice of leaders at their head becomes more transparent and open rather then a political stitch up.   We could for example, learn from the appointment of the Director General of the World Trade Organisation. This was a hotly contested battle the last time with the two leading candidates splitting their term between Mr Michael Moore of New Zealand and Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand.
 

However, it is not only the structural nature of the IMF, which has been called into question.  It should also reflect on its stagnant economic ideology. Take for example the response to the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.  During the 1990’s, the IMF developed an economic philosophy whereby it issued large rescue loans contingent on extensive “conditionality” generally including tight fiscal policy, widespread privatisation and other structural reform.  Namely, most fund members believe in markets and market-based solutions to problems, which is quite different from the interventionist instincts of many in Asia. The application of this philosophy in the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98 caused lingering resentment among some emerging market borrowers forced to undertake extensive medium term restructuring of their economies in return for short-term crisis loans.   
 

Added to this mix is the rapidly evolving global economy which has changed radically particularly with the rise of the emerging economies.  For example, the huge US current account deficit is financed by the inflow of surplus savings from countries like China. According to the IMF’s own statistics, the share of the EU in global output and purchase power parity, will shrink from 25 per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2015 reflecting well the growth in South-South trade particularly between India & China. Appointing an IMF MD from outside Europe would be a belated but significant recognition of this shift in economic influence. Indeed the G7 forum of the main industrialised economies has naturally expanded to become G20, to reflect this change.  Is it not time, therefore, for the IMF and World Bank to do the same with its share-holding make up? On the IMF Executive Board the US and European Union countries are dominant with their respective 17 and 32 per cent share blocks.  How then, can the Dutch continue to sustain a similar shareholding to India?
 

Also the leading candidate is not without baggage. The first thing to land in the IMF in-tray for the new MD is the impending Euro zone crisis again.  Ms Lagarde has a public record of defending the indefensible according to the Economist magazine, as she has already played a central role in forming the euro zone’s response to its debt crisis.  Here the IMF would have to be an impartial arbiter of good economic policy and thus the only organisation, which could force a rethink of the euro zone strategy towards Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Could the poacher really become game keeper, and retain creditability on this critical issue? This when it is regarded that the IMF has been soft on Europe so far and a lot tougher with Asian countries during its financial crisis in the late 1990s. 
 

So with the 10th of June deadline fast approaching, a stitch-up would truly be a disgrace.  Such powerful and influential international posts like this should be filled according to merit. Otherwise, what’s the difference between this selection process and the FIFA election of its “President for Life”, Sepp Blatter which we recently witnessed? 

At least each country’s football federation shared an equal vote, as opposed to the share percentage bias enjoyed by the US and Europe on the IMF Executive Board.  This must change as well, but first Europe’s monopoly on the IMF leadership needs to end.  If it refuses to change, then its very relevance within the global economy will inevitably be called into question, particularly with the increasingly relevant and influential emerging economies. 

Click here to view full article

Managing demand better with water meters is one of the ways forward in reducing our demand for water during the summer

Before the news hit the Radio and papers today, l’d already been asking the relevant authorities like Thames Water and the Environment Agency about the likelihood of a drought in London given the picture in other parts of the country like the East of England.

Looking at the latest assessment of water resources in London, I’ve been told the following; Firstly, the first quarter of the calendar year (Jan-March) saw  83% of the long term average rainfall, however March was unseasonally dry as we had only 22 % of the long term average rainfall.  This was followed by an exceptionally dry April.  Nevertheless, Thames Water do not anticipate having to impose restrictions at this time like a hosepipe ban.

The call comes in the Assembly’s response to the Mayor’s final Air Quality Strategy which sets out City Hall’s policies and measures to tackle poor air quality which is linked to an estimated 4,300 premature deaths every year.

Assembly Members are calling on the Mayor to set tougher targets than required by European standards. AMs also back the Mayor’s calls for Ministers to devise an national plan to deal with nitrogen dioxide.

Murad Qureshi, Chair of the Environment Committee said: “London’s poor air quality has a serious impact on the health of Londoners and contributes to thousands of people dying prematurely each year.

“We welcome the Mayor’s commitment to reducing pollution in the capital and are pleased he has taken on board some of our recommendations. However, he needs to aim even higher if he really wants to clean up London’s air.”

Click here to view the full article