SUV drivers should pay more tax, Sadiq Khan told
Sir Sadiq Khan is under pressure to tackle 'car-spreading' by hitting bigger vehicles in London with even higher taxes and parking fees.
In a motion passed by the London Assembly, the Mayor has been urged to write to the Government to demand higher vehicle excise duty for heavier vehicles and tighter restrictions on car sizes.
Assembly members, 11 of 25 of whom are the Mayor's Labour allies, also urged him to write to councils across the capital to ask them to adopt higher parking fees for bigger cars – a policy some have embraced already.
The motion blamed larger cars for clogging up London's streets, putting pedestrians at greater risk of injury or death and causing road surfaces to wear down more quickly.
Elly Baker, the Labour assembly member who proposed it, said the capital's streets 'weren't designed for larger vehicles like SUVs'.
She said: 'Their greater size, weight, and higher bonnets put vulnerable road users at greater risk, reduce available parking spaces, and cause more wear and tear on our roads.
'It's time we took sensible steps to manage the impact of oversized cars and ensure our streets remain safe and accessible for everyone.'
A spokesman for the Mayor said on Friday: 'The Mayor, Transport for London and borough partners are working to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads, by expanding the cycle network, making road crossings and junctions safer, reducing speed limits on our roads, and making larger vehicles like HGVs and buses safer.
'This year the Mayor will be refreshing his Vision Zero Action Plan, to restate his commitment to reducing road danger and responding to new and emerging risks on our roads'.
The assembly's call comes after several English local authorities have proposed higher charges for larger or heavier vehicles, amid complaints they occupy more space, produce higher levels of pollution and take a bigger toll on road surfaces.
Such charges have been proposed in Haringey, Bath, Oxford and Bristol, among other places, with many councillors taking a lead from Paris, where Left-wing French politicians have launched their own crackdown on SUVs.
Sir Sadiq currently lacks the formal powers to introduce such charges himself but has said he is watching developments in the French capital closely.
'SUVs take up more space and we know there's issues around road safety, we know there's issues around carbon emissions and so forth,' he said in February.
'We know some councils in London are taking bold policies in relation to parking fees, in relation to your tickets and so forth. It's really good to work with those councils.'
SUVs have grown in popularity in recent years, with many drivers favouring their higher seating position.
They accounted for a third of all new car registrations in the UK last year, compared with just 12pc a decade earlier.
SUVs are generally taller, wider and heavier than traditional cars, and less fuel-efficient.
The increase in the size of cars has been described as car-spreading.
However, Edmund King, the president of the AA, said it should be 'up to Londoners to choose the type of vehicle that best fulfils their needs'.
He said: 'It is not really the role of the London Assembly to dictate what cars individuals should drive.
'Some larger families may well need bigger vehicles with more passenger seats, whereas a driver conducting most trips alone may well choose a city car.
'London's streets were developed around the horse and cart, so of course our infrastructure needs modernising to keep up with change.'
A recent study found that pedestrians and cyclists are 44pc more likely to die if they are hit by an SUV or similar-sized vehicle rather than a traditional car.
The analysis produced by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London stated that the figure rises to 82pc for children.
Meanwhile, research by the campaign group Transport & Environment has previously found the average width of cars in the UK was growing by about half a centimetre per year.
A typical car was 180.3cm wide in 2023, up from 177.8cm just five years earlier.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abbott calls Starmer's immigration comments ‘fundamentally racist' at rally
Backbench Labour MP Diane Abbott has criticised Sir Keir Starmer's comments on immigration as 'fundamentally racist' at a protest rally, suggesting the Government was copying the rhetoric of Reform UK. Thousands of trade unionists, campaigners and activists gathered to 'send a message' to the Government at a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform in central London on Saturday. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Abbott were among those who gave speeches at the rally outside Downing Street following a march. Organisers The People's Assembly accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. The Prime Minister said the UK risked becoming 'an island of strangers' when he unveiled plans for tighter controls on immigration in a major speech last month, leading to a mixed reaction from different parties. Addressing the protest crowd in Whitehall, Ms Abbott – who was previously suspended by Labour in 2023 before being allowed to run in last year's general election – said there was an international struggle to 'fight the rich and the powerful (and) to fight the racists', including in her own party. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And, finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. 'I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country. 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' Reform's leader Nigel Farage previously said his party 'very much enjoyed' Sir Keir's speech, as it showed he was 'learning a great deal' from them. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could be seen at the demonstration's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. Mr Corbyn, who also criticised Sir Keir's 'island of strangers' comments, told protesters at the rally: 'As the wars rage around the world – the killing fields in Ukraine and Russia, the abominable, deliberate starvation of children in Gaza and the genocide that's inflicted against the Palestinian people continues – surely to goodness we need a world of peace. 'We need a world of peace that will come through the vision of peace, the vision of disarmament and the vision of actually challenging the causes of war, which leads to the desperation and the refugee flows of today.' The Independent MP for Islington North urged protesters to 'go forward as a movement of hope, of what we can achieve together (and) the society we can build together'. The People's Assembly said trade unionists, health, disability, housing and welfare campaigners with community organisations came together for the protest under the slogan 'No to Austerity2.0'. A spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Councils fly flags to support Ukraine – but block defence spending
Councils are flying flags for Ukraine from their town halls while blocking investment in the British defence industry. At least a dozen English councils have passed motions to 'divest' from defence companies because of the war in Gaza, or have taken steps to reduce their holdings in arms companies. A report by two Labour MPs has found that defence companies have missed out on at least £30 million in investment because of action taken by local councils to focus their pension funds on 'ethical' firms. Despite this, several of the councils have displayed the Ukrainian flag from their town halls in solidarity against Russia. The MPs, Luke Charters and Alex Baker, said there was 'untapped potential' in local government pensions that could be used to boost investment in the defence sector, which often struggles to access finance. They argued that supporting British defence companies would help Ukraine, which has received more than £18 billion in military and humanitarian support from the UK. The MPs said there was a 'concerning trend among UK councils to divest from defence, with at least a dozen authorities implementing partial or full exclusion policies since 2022'. The MPs did not name the councils, but The Telegraph has found evidence of town halls in London, Bristol, Somerset, Oxford and Dudley where motions have been passed banning defence investment in support of Palestine. Dudley council, which is under no single party's overall control, passed a motion to divest from defence companies with the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. The council has flown the Ukrainian flag several times since the Russian invasion in February 2022, and lit up its town hall in blue and yellow. Labour-run Manchester city council, which voted to pressure its pension provider to abandon weapons manufacturers in November last year, has celebrated Ukrainian independence day and spent £50,000 to support Ukrainian refugees arriving in the city. The motion noted that councillors 'recognise the inextricable link between war, climate destruction, and human suffering' and that 'armed conflicts not only result in loss of life, including civilians and children, but also lead to intense environmental destruction'. Labour-run Waltham Forest Council, which announced plans to sell all defence investments in August last year, has hosted events for Ukrainian residents affected by the 'crisis' in their home country. Mr Charters told The Telegraph: 'With war on our continent, this is not the moment for councils to pull back from investing in UK defence. 'Firms and financiers have been clear when we have engaged with them: barriers like weak demand signals, short-term contracts, divestment, and regulatory uncertainty are holding the sector back. 'Our report calls for urgent engagement with local government pension schemes – and sets out 12 reforms to help unlock the capital and credit our defence sector needs to grow. 'Financing sovereign defence isn't optional – it's vital to our security and economic future.' The report's findings also include an apparent admission from the parliamentary pension scheme for MPs that their savings are often deliberately not invested in defence. A letter to the MPs from the chair of the fund said that while there was no specific ban on defence investments, 'environmental, social, governance and climate change issues tend to be more pronounced in some defence companies'. Mr Charters and Ms Baker said: 'There needs to be a holistic review by officials to understand how public investment vehicles are performing when it comes to defence sector investment. 'The UK cannot afford to miss this moment due to outdated ethical aversions. 'Defence investments represent not only a financial opportunity, but also an ethical obligation to secure the nation's future amidst an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape.' Dudley council, Manchester city council and Waltham Forest council have all been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
