Sadiq Khan defends Ulez expansion and says high court challenge wasted Londoners’ money – UK politics live

Ulez court challenge wasted taxpayers’ money, says Khan

Sadiq Khan has been speaking to the BBC about the high court’s judgment today on the Ulez expansion.

The mayor of London told BBC News:

I welcome the judgment today. I’ve been told more than £1m of council taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this case.

I’m quite clear though, I made this decision to expand Ulez because it is really important we address the public health crisis.

Asked about increased costs to Londoners, Khan says nine out of 10 cars in London were already compliant with Ulez and the scrappage scheme would offer support.

Updated at 08.48 EDT

Key events

Nigel Farage is used to being thanked by true believers in Brexit, but the man who came to grasp his hand as he sat down for dinner in London’s Belgravia on Tuesday night was a surprise.

“It was a chap who just said ‘Nigel, I’m a remainer, but please, stand up for us’. He was an Italian businessman in London who was having terrible trouble receiving foreign payments because banks thought he was a money launderer,” the former Ukip leader said.

Hours later, the departure of Dame Alison Rose as NatWest’s chief executive over her role in the Farage “debanking” controversy would give the politician turned broadcaster one of his greatest coups since Brexit.

It has also lifted him from the relative obscurity of his last reinvention, as the star anchor of GB News. Just like old times – when he was a near-omnipresent fixture across all channels – he has suddenly found himself back in the limelight with a soapbox issue that has ministers and the rightwing press following in his wake.

He is now launching a website to collect details of tens of thousands of people he expects will back his campaign against a banking system he claims is “rotten to the core”. While he says it will be “non-political, non-party”, the future political potential of such a database is obvious.

Read the full story here:

Jeremy Hunt said he recognised the need to avoid a “hiatus” after the government receives the inquiry’s final report, but claimed it was important that ministers had all the “context”.

Pressed on the possibilities of delays caused by a general election next year and the pre-poll period of purdah, the chancellor said the work carried out so far was “because we want to be in a position to resolve this issue as soon as we possibly can upon the conclusion of the inquiry”.

Hunt was also pressed on the government decision to wait for the conclusion of the inquiry before making a decision on compensation.

He said that because the sums are “potentially very large”, it was right to make a decision with the “full context”.

He added:

What would not be acceptable would be for that moment to be another hiatus where there was another very long period of time.

I think the fact that ahead of the final conclusions of the inquiry that we’ve paid compensation, we’ve paid interim quantum compensation, and we’ve accepted the case for compensation, and we are doing the work now to understand what the final amounts should be, indicates that we want to make the process as quick as we possibly can.

Kevin Rawlinson

The government is unable to say how many of the children who have come to the UK to seek safety it has placed in temporary hotel accommodation, or give the age of the youngest, because it has not kept a sufficiently accurate count, ministers have admitted.

The Home Office was accused in January of a “dereliction of duty” after it emerged that hundreds of children had gone missing after being placed in hotels, with a whistleblower saying that some had been abducted on the streets outside.

The high court ruled this week that the government’s “routine” housing of unaccompanied child asylum seekers in hotels was unlawful.

The paucity of the government’s record-keeping was revealed by written answers to parliamentary questions posed by the Liberal Democrat peer Paul Scriven. In one question, he asked how many unaccompanied children seeking asylum have been housed in Home Office temporary hotels in the past 18 months. The Home Office answered: “The data requested cannot be provided as it comes from live operational databases that have not been quality assured.”

In another question, Scriven asked the age of the youngest unaccompanied child seeking asylum who has been housed in a Home Office temporary hotel and how long the child was housed for. He received the same answer.

Lord Scriven said:

This is a national scandal and beneath us as a country. The Home Office’s careless practice in asylum seeker hotels is totally unacceptable and unlawful, too, as the courts have now confirmed.

It’s shameful that the Conservatives are falling so far short of their legal obligations and that they’ve let the backlog balloon so much that hotel accommodation is required in the first place. The Home Office has got to do better.

Fizza Qureshi, the chief executive of the Migrants’ Rights Network, said:

The fact that the Home Office does not have data on the ages of these children or how many are housed in temporary hotels is concerning.

This raises questions about how the Home Office and local authorities are able to provide adequate safeguarding and care for those it should be protecting. Furthermore, it also calls into question how they know if – and where – children are going missing from Home Office accommodation, like in Brighton and Hove earlier this year.

She said the Home Office’s record-keeping showed a “total disregard” for the safety of unaccompanied children seeking asylum.

Read more here:

Jeremy Hunt said he appreciated “that from the outside it feels like the government is working painfully slowly”.

Asked if it would be fair to say that had successive governments acted sooner the cost might have been substantially less than it might now, the chancellor said:

It wouldn’t just have cost less, it would have been more just. It would have meant that many hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have died knowing justice had been done, even despite the incredible agony that they and their families have been through. So, I think that goes without saying.

Hunt also told the inquiry:

I happen to have a lot of personal interaction with people who have been affected by this scandal. So, I do understand why there is a very, very high degree of suspicion.

He added:

I appreciate that from the outside it feels like the government is working painfully slowly and I appreciate the moral urgency given that people are dying.

But I am satisfied, as chancellor, that the government is working very fast to try and resolve this as quickly as possible.

Jeremy Hunt says he ‘cannot ignore the economic context’ when deciding about compensation for infected blood scandal victims

Jeremy Hunt said he cannot ignore the economic situation when making decisions about compensation for infected blood scandal victims.

Giving evidence to the official inquiry, the chancellor said:

It’s a very uncomfortable thing for me to say but I can’t ignore the economic and fiscal context, because in the end the country only has the money that it has. So, I can’t ignore it.

I think everyone here should take some comfort from the fact that the government has decided there is a moral case for compensation and justice should be done, and that is a very big change.

We now have to work through the fact that … this is a much more challenging time to find the sorts of sums of money that this could potentially involve.

Updated at 10.41 EDT

The foreign secretary, James Cleverly, has said London mayor Sadiq Khan is “not on [people’s] side”, claiming the Ulez expansion will disproportionately affect those who already have the cleanest air as well as those who cannot afford a new vehicle.

Cleverly also said people living in areas with the fewest public transport options would be some of the hardest hit by the planned changes.

Updated at 10.06 EDT

Here is more from the Conservative party’s London mayoral candidate, Susan Hall, who opposed the expansion, saying it will have a “devastating” impact on families and businesses across the capital.

Hall told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme that while net zero is a good ambition, Londoners don’t want the Ulez to be expanded.

She said:

It’s a good ambition, but I don’t actually think it will be possible.

Net zero is a good ambition. How we get there is debatable.

We’d all have different ideas but I have to tell you, Londoners do not want the expanded Ulez zone.

Earlier, she said if she was elected mayor, she plans to stop the Ulez expansion and will set up a “pollution hotspots fund” to tackle pollution “where it is” in the capital, rather than “taxing people where it isn’t”.

Updated at 10.00 EDT

Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose nine-year-old daughter died after an asthma attack due to air pollution in 2013, said it was a relief Ulez would be expanded in London.

Her daughter Ella had 25 emergency hospital admissions in the previous three years before she died. The family’s home was near a major road in Lewisham. In 2020, a landmark coroner’s report made Ella the first person in the world to have air pollution cited as a cause of death.

Following today’s ruling, Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who is now a World Health Organization (WHO) air quality ambassador, told BBC News:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the mayor of London for listening to me and [prioritising] the lives of children, especially in London.

Up to 12 die every year from asthma, and I am relieved really. I think I’m slightly overwhelmed and quite shocked.

Adoo-Kissi-Debrah told reporters that air pollution should be seen as a “health issue” by politicians. She called on Rishi Sunak to contribute more to the Ulez scrappage scheme.

She added:

This isn’t a party political issue. This is about lives and about the nation’s health.

Updated at 08.59 EDT

Gina Miller voices fear for democracy over closure of her party’s bank account

The anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller has said “we don’t have a functioning democracy” if new political parties cannot access banking services, after she was told her own party’s account would be shut.

The government and financial services watchdog must step in, she said, to ensure new parties and MPs can access banking to be able to operate.

Miller said it was a “bigger issue” than the closure of Nigel Farage’s bank account, which led to a row resulting in the resignations of the top bosses at NatWest and Coutts.

Miller, who came to prominence bringing legal cases over Brexit, was informed earlier this month by Monzo that her True and Fair party’s account would close in September.

She was told in a message on the bank’s app but was given no explanation.

Monzo has now said it does not accept any political parties and that the account was opened erroneously as it was not categorised as such in the application.

Nine banks had turned down the True and Fair party before it got the account with Monzo in November 2021, according to Miller.

She told the PA news agency:

That is the bigger issue, the fact that as a new insurgent political party you have no access to banking services, which is extraordinary in a democracy.

The party has now found a small institution to bank with, but, Miller said: “What if they turn around in future and say: ‘Well, actually, we’ve decided for no reason that because you’re a political party, you can’t have a bank account’?

I think the government and the FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] have got to step in straight away because if this happened – we lose our account in September for Monzo, and then another bank or our new provider decides that they will use this same rule saying ‘oh well we don’t accept political parties’ – then we in effect won’t exist.

We wouldn’t be able to operate because we wouldn’t have any access to any banking services.

Read the full story here:

Updated at 08.48 EDT

Reacting to news that a legal challenge against plans to expand the capital’s Ulez scheme has not succeeded, Friends of the Earth air pollution campaigner, Jenny Bates, said:

This is great news for Londoners. With air pollution responsible for tens of thousands of early deaths each year across the UK clean air schemes like ULEZ are vital for protecting public health.

Air quality in London is the worst in the country, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest – particularly children, who can grow up with reduced lung function. Older people too are more likely to have a pre-existing condition made even worse.

The government should be giving more support to help clean up our dirty air. This should include more money to help people switch to cleaner vehicles, especially those on low incomes – and to enable greater investment in public transport and cycling and walking infrastructure.

Also commenting on the Ulez legal ruling, Greenpeace UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said:

As we enter an era of global boiling, now is not the time for political point scoring over measures to tackle climate change and protect the health of our children.

Clean air is a basic human right and no one wants more traffic, toxic air pollution and the serious health problems that come with it.

The Ulez has been a huge success since its introduction, almost halving harmful air pollution in central London, and its expansion is supported by a majority of Londoners.

And as battery factories look to start up in the UK, the benefits of action like this for our future are clear.

Those who feel that the Ulez expansion is unfair should point the finger squarely at the government.

A Government committed to solving the problems of air pollution in the capital should work with the mayor to provide proper financial support for working people wanting to get rid of older, more polluting vehicles.

Ulez court challenge wasted taxpayers’ money, says Khan

Sadiq Khan has been speaking to the BBC about the high court’s judgment today on the Ulez expansion.

The mayor of London told BBC News:

I welcome the judgment today. I’ve been told more than £1m of council taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this case.

I’m quite clear though, I made this decision to expand Ulez because it is really important we address the public health crisis.

Asked about increased costs to Londoners, Khan says nine out of 10 cars in London were already compliant with Ulez and the scrappage scheme would offer support.

Updated at 08.48 EDT

Kiran Stacey

Yvette Cooper has accused the government of “flailing around” in its approach to tackling backlogs in the UK asylum system after it emerged the Home Office has bought tents ready to house up to 2,000 people on disused military sites.

The shadow home secretary attacked the government for failing to process asylum claims more quickly, although she refused to say whether Labour would also use tents to deal with the migrant housing crisis.

Cooper was speaking after the Times revealed the Home Office had procured marquees to avoid having to book hotel rooms at the last minute to cope with an expected increase in people crossing the Channel to claim asylum.

She told LBC:

We’ve seen [ministers] really flailing around with the barges, the bases, the tents now. And actually all this is alongside increasing hotel use when they should be ending hotel use, because they’re simply not taking asylum decisions.

Asked separately by Sky News whether Labour would also use tents in an emergency situation, she said:

We think we should be ending hotel use altogether, we shouldn’t need to use all of these additional things. We’ve got to get the backlog down.

The government has struggled to accommodate thousands of asylum seekers in recent years as the backlog of undecided cases has built. With the backlog now at nearly 75,000, ministers are spending about £2bn a year on hotel rooms to house people waiting to hear if they can remain in the country.

The use of hotel rooms has caused anger among some local communities and legal challenges from human rights organisations. On Thursday, the high court ruled the government’s “routine” use of hotels to house unaccompanied children was unlawful, saying such an arrangement should be used only in emergency situations.

Read more here:

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

Teresa 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.

Updated at 07.37 EDT

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.

Updated at 06.26 EDT

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.

Updated at 06.20 EDT

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.

Updated at 05.49 EDT

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.

Updated at 05.49 EDT