Sadiq Khan wins high court battle over London Ulez extension – UK politics live | UK news

Kiran Stacey

Here’s some more reaction from the councils who took on the Ulez expansion.

Onora O’Neill, the leader of Bexley council, called on Sadiq Khan to delay the implementation of the Ulez expansion.

Lady O’Neill said after the high court ruling:

I’m extremely disappointed at the outcome of the judicial review and the impact it will have on our residents and businesses. They have told us time and time again how worried they were about Ulez which was why we took this action on their behalf.

The judge may have said that the mayor has the legal right to implement the scheme but, as we saw last week, there is also a moral judgment to consider. Even senior supporters of the mayor have voiced their concerns around the expansion of this scheme.

The fact that the mayor of London has got his way and that his Ulez expansion plan is to go ahead is devastating for the whole of outer London. This is especially true for Bexley because of our lack of transport links.

Councillor Colin Smith, leader of Bromley council, said the high court ruling was a “bitter disappointment” for motorists, traders who would have to “consider ceasing business and laying off staff” and people who would not be able “to support vital care networks” in outer London.

He said:

Today’s decision cannot be disguised as anything other than bitter disappointment for motorists in general, traders who will now have to consider ceasing business and laying off staff, those who will now have to change jobs and, most desperately of all, people who will no longer be able to support vital care networks for vulnerable people across the whole of outer London in particular.

To all of them as well as the legion of families who will now have to trade in perfectly good cars at significant cost they can’t really afford, for a newer vehicle they don’t want or need, I can only say sorry. We’ve tried our very hardest to protect you but ultimately, today’s judgment does mean that the mayor has taken another step closer to getting his way.

Councillor Paul Osborn, leader of Harrow council, said he would “press” the government for power to stop the Ulez expansion locally.

He said:

This is not the outcome we were hoping for and is hugely disappointing. It is a sad day for our residents and businesses who are worried about the impact the expansion will have on them when it comes into force in August.

I firmly believe that Ulez expansion is the wrong scheme for outer London. We had an arguable case, and the fact that we got this far in our challenge against this unpopular scheme shows that we were right to proceed.

Councillor Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey county council, said after the ruling:

Whilst we respect today’s court decision, it is incredibly disappointing. This has always been about protecting Surrey residents, many of whom will now be significantly socially and financially impacted by the mayor’s decision as they go about essential, everyday journeys, without any mitigation in place to minimise this.

Our concerns, which have never been addressed by the mayor despite our continued efforts, forced these legal proceedings to ensure we did all we possibly could to have the voice of our residents heard.

The five councils who brought the Ulez legal challenge said they were “hugely disappointed” with the high court’s ruling, adding that the mayor and Transport for London (TfL) “do not realise the damage” the extension of the zone will have.

In a joint press release, the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and Surrey county council said:

Although the mayor of London and TfL may have the legal right to implement the scheme, the question remains whether the public would agree he has the moral right to do so, given it was only last week that the court of public opinion delivered a different verdict with the surprise byelection win in Uxbridge, an election that was seen as a referendum on the expansion of Ulez.

It is evident that the mayor of London and TfL do not realise the damage the extension will have to the lives of residents and businesses in outer London as well as those outside of its borders.

Councillor Ian Edwards, leader of Hillingdon council, claimed the Ulez expansion would cause “even greater financial hardship” to some people.

He said after the ruling:

I am hugely disappointed for our residents and businesses and I call on the mayor of London to further reflect on his plans.

Even the mayor’s own supporters are now saying that it is the wrong time to be expanding this scheme. Many thousands of low-income earners, vulnerable people, ordinary workers and small businesses who are the beating heart of our borough will have to shoulder further costs which they cannot afford. It will cause even greater financial hardship and for some it will cause the loss of business or employment.

We will continue our fight on behalf of our residents and business through parliament and at next year’s mayoral election.

I am proud that we had the courage and conviction to stand up for our residents and businesses and I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in or who has sent messages of support for our fight which, as I have said, will go on.

The NatWest chair, Sir Howard Davies, said he would stay in his post to give “stability” and ensure an “orderly transition” at the embattled bank, amid speculation that he could be the lender’s third boss to be ousted over the Nigel Farage bank account scandal.

The bank also revealed it had hired external lawyers to investigate the closure of Farage’s accounts at its private bank Coutts, who will also look into the information Dame Alison Rose shared with a BBC reporter, that led to her shock resignation as chief executive in the early hours of Wednesday. Coutts’s chief executive, Peter Flavel, stepped down a day later.

Davies, who was already set to retire from his post in summer 2024, told journalists on Friday morning that the search for his successor would continue in a “completely normal” manner, despite the prime minister failing to publicly back him a day earlier.

“My intention is to continue to lead the board,” Davies said.

Referring to the government’s 38.5% stake, a hangover from its 2008 state bailout, he said:

My understanding is that we do have the support of our main shareholder and of the regulators, for us to continue to steer this bank forward.

It’s important that there is some stability here in the bank, and that we maintain our progress. And eventually, of course, there will be an orderly succession both for me, and indeed, the new chairman will have to review the CEO position.

NatWest’s shares recovered some ground on Friday morning, rising 1.8%. That followed a 4.5% drop over the 48 hours after Rose’s departure, resulting in almost £1bn being wiped off the bank’s market value.

Davies stressed that neither he nor the board had any involvement in the two main issues underlying the scandal, namely the closure of Farage’s account at Coutts, and the discussion that Rose had with the BBC business editor, Simon Jack, regarding the former Ukip leader’s banking affairs.

Read more from my colleagues Kalyeena Makortoff and Anna Isaac here:

Responding to the Ulez judgment, the AA spokesperson Luke Bosdet said the restriction on car use that prices hundreds of thousands of low-income workers, families and elderly drivers off the road was “inevitably going to cause a backlash”.

He said:

Today’s ruling is hugely disappointing but the AA hopes that the London mayor will now adopt some of the measures other cities with restrictions have used to reduce the impact on drivers who can least cope with them.

The London Ulez suffers from three huge flaws: lack of public transport alternatives in many parts of outer London, the minimal time between the decision to go ahead and its implementation, and its massively disproportionate impact on those drivers least able to afford to update their vehicles.

Most of these were identified in the impact assessment carried out for the mayor but were ignored.

Other cities, such as Birmingham and Oxford, that are setting up city restrictions to lower emissions and reduce congestion have recognised the potentially devastating impact to workers, families and the elderly from losing use of their cars.

The local authorities there adopted measures to either give those vulnerable groups more time to react or to reduce the impact on them. These have once again been ignored by the London mayor.

Sarah Woolnough, the chief executive at Asthma + Lung UK, said the charity was pleased with the ruling from the Ulez judicial review and said the scheme’s expansion was “a positive step” towards cleaner air for Londoners.

We’re pleased that the Ulez expansion will go ahead as planned. The Ulez scheme has successfully lowered levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air and expanding it to greater London will mean more Londoners will experience the health benefits of reduced pollution.

Road transport is the leading cause of air pollution in our towns and cities. For people living with lung conditions, such as COPD and asthma, harmful pollutants trigger symptoms including breathlessness, coughing and wheezing, and in more severe cases these flare-ups can result in hospitalisation.

The Ulez expansion is a positive step towards cleaner air across the city, allowing Londoners to breathe more easily.

Sadiq Khan said the Ulez scheme would be expanded as planned following the decision in the high court.

The mayor of London said:

This landmark decision is good news as it means we can proceed with cleaning up the air in outer London on 29 August.

The decision to expand the Ulez was very difficult and not something I took lightly and I continue to do everything possible to address any concerns Londoners may have.

The Ulez has already reduced toxic nitrogen dioxide air pollution by nearly half in central London and a fifth in inner London.

The coming expansion will see 5 million more Londoners being able to breathe cleaner air.

I’ve been listening to Londoners throughout the Ulez rollout, which is why from next week I am expanding the scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit and all small businesses with up to 50 employees. I will continue to look at new ideas to support Londoners.

Here’s some reaction from the Tories to Mr Justice Swift’s decision on the Ulez expansion.

The Conservative party’s London mayoral candidate Susan Hall said:

While it is a shame the high court did not find the Ulez expansion to be unlawful, there is no denying that Sadiq Khan’s plans will have a devastating impact on families and businesses across the city.

If I am elected mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.

Tory AM Keith Prince, who is the City Hall Conservatives’ transport spokesperson, said:

While there was insufficient evidence the Ulez expansion is unlawful, the evidence is clear that the policy will hit the poorest hardest, while having only a negligible effect on air quality.

Sadiq Khan cannot ignore the overwhelming opposition of both Londoners and his own party for ever. We will continue campaigning to get the Ulez expansion scrapped, so we can tackle air pollution where it is instead of taxing where it isn’t.

Giving a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said:

I am satisfied that the mayor’s decision to expand the Ulez area by amendment of the present road charging scheme, rather than by making an entirely new … scheme, was within his powers.

The judge added that, having “carefully considered” the consultation process, he was satisfied that enough information was given for people who wished to respond to provide “informed responses”.

He also said the consultation on the scrappage scheme was “not in depth”, but was “lawful”.

Court dismisses challenge by five councils over expansion

Gwyn Topham

Sadiq Khan wins high court battle over Ulez extension

The Scottish National party has pushed Labour leader Keir Starmer to commit to scrapping the so-called bedroom tax if his party wins the next election.

Labour has come under pressure in recent weeks after Starmer’s failure to commit to scrapping the two-child benefit cap due to uncertainty around the UK’s economic outlook.

The under-occupation deduction, described by opponents as the bedroom tax, sees benefit claimants have their payments reduced if they have an unoccupied bedroom.

New figures published by the House of Commons Library show more than 500,000 households were impacted by the policy in the UK as of May last year, including 374,366 in England, 97,425 in Scotland and 32,497 in Wales, PA news reports.

The SNP’s social justice spokesperson, David Linden, called on Starmer to commit to scrapping the measure if he wins the keys to Downing Street after the next election.

He said:

Sir Keir Starmer must admit whether the pro-Brexit Labour party is secretly planning to keep the Tory bedroom tax, which cut the incomes of almost 100,000 low income households in Scotland last year – and more than half a million households across the UK.

It’s clearer by the day that the SNP is the only party offering real change with independence and real help with the cost of living. In contrast, (Rishi) Sunak and Starmer are lurching further to the right and taking money away from millions of households across Scotland and the UK.

People in Scotland are crying out for change from the damage of Westminster control – but all they are getting from the Tories and pro-Brexit Labour party are more cuts to household incomes, more cuts to public services, and more long-term decline with Brexit.

At the next election, voting SNP is the only way to secure independence, tackle the cost of living, and get rid of unelected Tory governments for good.

The Alba party echoed the SNP call on Friday, with its Westminster leader Neale Hanvey saying:

If Starmer’s logic is that he won’t scrap the Tory two-child cap then it is increasingly likely that if in government his Labour party wouldn’t scrap the bedroom tax either.

It’s time for the Labour party to come clean, if they get into government will they scrap the bedroom tax or keep it?

Suella Braverman’s plans to house migrants in tents have been condemned by a refugee charity.

In an effort to avoid accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, the Home Office has bought the marquees in recent days ahead of an expected rise in small boat crossings in August, despite warnings by some in government that housing people in tents could trigger legal challenges based on inhumane treatment.

Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action, said:

It’s staggering the home secretary plans to use what a government source compared to a concentration camp to house people seeking asylum – in the same week courts ruled she broke the law three times with her inhumane treatment of refugees.

The winners from this cruel plan will be the Home Office’s asylum housing contractors, who trouser tens of millions of pounds in taxpayer-subsidised profits as standards continue to plummet.

This is yet another way the government has developed to demonise people seeking asylum, which is rooted in its deeply racist approach to refugee protection.

It really shouldn’t be too much to ask that people who have fled violence, torture and persecution have their claims assessed quickly and justly and are housed in safe homes in our communities.

NatWest has launched an independent review into the handling of Nigel Farage’s account being shut down by high-net-worth bank Coutts, its chair has said.

Howard Davies said it had appointed Travers Smith to lead the review into the account closure and how the information was handled, after NatWest’s boss Alison Rose and Coutts boss Peter Flavel both stepped down this week.

Davies added:

The last few weeks have been a painful period for the bank, and we apologise for the uncertainty created for customers and shareholders during that period.

The interim chief executive, Paul Thwaite, said:

It’s an understatement to say that these are not ideal circumstances for anyone to take over.

It’s clear to me that we got some things wrong.

It will take time to address some of those challenges, but I’ve already taken action. I’m determined we learn, and start to move forward quickly.

The Guardian’s Today in Focus podcast has looked into why Farage’s bank account dominated news headlines:

Reports that the Home Office has procured tents to house migrants ahead of an expected surge in small-boat arrivals shows the government does not expect legislation designed to address the issue to work, the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said.

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about reports that the government has bought tents in recent days to accommodate people, Cooper said it was an example that the Home Office is “flailing around”.

The shadow home secretary said:

We’ve had all sorts of different things. Hotel use is still going up … we’ve still got the barges, bases, tents, all sorts of different things.

I think this is in part an admission that their own legislation that they promised would stop boat crossings, they promised would end all of the chaos, in fact they are not expecting it to work.

I think at the heart of this, the government is just failing to go after the criminal gangs that are driving and organising border crossings.

She said Labour had set out plans for a “new cross-border police unit” and a new organised crime strategy across the UK.

Here’s more on this story from my colleague Donna Ferguson:

Judge to give ruling on Ulez expansion

Nicola Slawson