|
|||||||||||||||
|
THE
PUBLIC IS WAKING UP … ULEZ A STEPPING STONE TO ROAD PRICING On 15 April 2023, Trafalgar Square saw a well-attended
demonstration with speeches from different public figures and campaign
groups. It was good-humoured but very firm show of the strength of feeling
against the Mayor’s plans. These plans. in the massively
under-publicised 2022 consultation, sought to put in a Londonwide charging
regime policed by cameras. The consultation also covered road pricing (even
less well publicised) – the revenue from which would replace ULEZ revenue by
2026.
|
|||||||||||||
|
THE 2023
JUDICIAL REVIEWS ● In Sept 2023, a Judicial
Review (JR) on expanding ULEZ was unsuccessful. This was a private
application from Chris White’, best covered by its own appeal website. ● In July 2023, a Judicial
Review from London boroughs Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and
Surrey County Council was unsuccessful. 3 of the 5
grounds for challenge were examined. The judgment
appeared on the BAILII
legal website. ● The law is not an exact science, and in practice, judges
may not agree with each other. A JR just reviews due process, not the merits of a policy. Some comments aired
after the judgment are featured in the next section.
● Earlier eyebrows have been raised on the choice of session
judge for an application hearing. According to Wikipedia, Sir Ross Cranston KC is a
professor of Law at London School of Economics and a retired High Court
judge. He is also a former Labour
Party MP and minister (like Mayor Khan). The BBC notes “He was one of three ministers to refuse
the use of an official car.” ● Some find it strange that a former Labour MP and minister should
be chosen to adjudicate in a dispute between a Labour Mayor and 5
Conservative councils? An appeal partially overturned refusal of the
Councils’ grounds. ● The decision to proceed with the hearing excited
the PM Rishi Sunak, who twice
turned down MPs’ requests to stop ULEZ using the Greater London Authority Act. In particular, the cost to residents of the
5 councils could have been avoided, had he acted . . |
|||||||||||||
|
WHAT
WERE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS? ●
The five councils’ Judicial Review (JR) claimed defects in three areas:
legality of the implementing order, the consultation and the scrappage
scheme. ●
On the order, the councils were
hard done-by in an area where technicality
is supposed to be everything. TfL were supposed to have a 10 year plan for
using proceeds; the judge very kindly accepted a four year programme. -
published in March, after the legal challenge was lodged. ●
The councils queried whether the consultation provided adequate explanation,
especially on the proportion of ULEZ-compliant vehicles. Legal precedent was
that public bodies cannot rely on publishing complex information and leave
consultees to try to interpret it – they had to explain it. The judge felt that some of the information was scant
or expressed using technical jargon that could be unfamiliar to readers, but
this did not breach legal standards. He felt that TFL’s estimates were
‘robust’, even though vehicle figures were later exposed as on the low side. ●
However it seems that TfL only materially engaged with DVLA over the detail
of who was affected AFTER making the order in November. That seems a
significant omission as a consultation should make special efforts to reach those being deprived of a benefit; in this case driving on roads they already
pay VED to use. Also, the public that ABD engaged with in 2022 had minimal
awareness that a consultation was even taking place, ●
The councils’ arguments against scrappage scheme legality were weak. There
was a stronger case around ‘legitimate
expectation’ as the Mayor said that only overwhelming opposition would
stop ULEZ expansion. The public response was at least 73%-27% against. Of
those not using TfL’s laborious questionnaire, this hit 80%. ●
It’s hard to feel that there was not ‘pre-determination’
– the decision was effectively made in advance, without being properly open
to influence. TfL did not duly take into account reasoned objections, in
particular, those debunking leaky assertions
on ‘deaths’. TfL had admitted that impact on air quality and ‘climate
change’ would be minimal. |
|||||||||||||
|
OTHER
HIGHLIGHTS FROM 2023 … So much happened that in the first quarter, we produced
a snapshot feature
covering developments such as what the politicians said and did, and moves
towards a Judicial Review.. . . Apart from ABD, other sources of information include Action Against ULEZ
Extension (link to Facebook group)
and the local press (spin warnings on some official
comments) News Shopper (SE
London) My
London (Reach / Trinity Mirror group) Newspaper reports clearly show the economic casualties
and social costs of expansion. |
|||||||||||||
|
THE BACKGROUND
LEADING UP TO THE 2022 CONSULTATION… Our article
on Khan's 2021 Manifesto showed the viciously anti-driver policies of the
Mayor who had posed as ‘a Mayor for all Londoners’..
. In particular, his campaign was bland on road pricing –
otherwise he would not have been re-elected. His Manifesto merely said he
would monitor his road-charging
schemes for ‘benefits’ (e.g. over congestion) and identify where further action is needed. It is clear that he wants to extract even more money
from over-taxed drivers. However, he stated that he had no plans to expand
ULEZ – that was before he was appointed Chair of a woke
international ‘climate coven of Mayors known as C40 Cities in 2021. On 18 January 2022, he made clear
his aspirations: ● He said he needed to charge drivers
a "small" daily fee of
up to £2 for "all but the cleanest vehicles" on the pretext of air
quality. (‘Small’ – means up to £732 a year more! There would also be issues
for population surveillance.) ● He also considered charging drivers
from outside the capital who wished to travel
into Greater London. (For many
that would be a tax on going to work, and Londoners would suffer if their
tradesmen had to pass on the cost. There would be other quirks, such as
forcing drivers just outside Greater London to drive further.) ● He is also considered making the
current ULEZ charging zone Londonwide. ● In the longer term, he said that he
needed to bring in a pay-per-mile road
pricing system. (Just what the lobbyists have been agitating for.) BBC MyLondon GLA
PR (spin warning!) There was little of real substance on
the proposals. Any proposal would be ‘subject to feasibility and
consultation’, so the charges were not a done deal. The first two listed were
duly ruled out. However after the May 2022 council
elections, Transport for London launched a consultation, with the publicity majoring on expanding the ULEZ. This diverted some attention away from
Khan’s less loudly publicised desire for Londonwide
road pricing. Rather than propose clear detail –
including a projected breakdown of costs and revenue – Khan just sought to
update his Mayor’s Transport Strategy
document with a policy to introduce road pricing. Softly softly
catchee monkey’ by Transport for London? |
|||||||||||||
|
NOTES ON
THE 2022 CONSULTATION… Despite the playing down, one of the
long consultation documents (Integrated Impact Analysis by Jacobs
consultancy) made the assumption
that Londonwide road pricing (‘road
user charging’) would be in place by 2026 replacing ULEZ revenue. Consultation
update 25 November 2022, reports (ULEZ and MTS) https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair#folder-44947-7909 Original
consultation documents https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair?cid=clean-air Please help spread the
word and actively support us in calling for a fairer
deal for over-taxed drivers. |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Welcome to London graphic
designed by Freepik