Home News

The economic chasm between the north and south of England is set to be widened by the cost-of-living crisis, new research suggests.Of the 31 areas across the country most vulnerable to soaring fuel, food and energy prices, 19 are in the north and another eight are in the midlands, according to analysis compiled by the Centre for Progressive Policy. The remaining four are in London.People living in Middlesbrough, Hull and Blackburn with Darwen will hit the hardest by skyrocketing costs in the coming months, the economic think tank predicts. Burnley, Sandwell in the West Midlands and Hyndburn in Lancashire make up the rest of the top six places likely to be worst effected.The analysis — which ranked all 310 local authority areas in England — suggests Boris Johnson will not only fail in what he has described as a “moral mission” to level up the country but instead oversee a worsening of the divide between the northern half of the country and the more affluent south during his term in office.“Levelling up slogans will be dead on arrival at the next election unless the government reconsiders its policy options,” said Ben Franklin, director of the left-leaning CPP.Writing in the centre’s new Levelling Up Outlook report, he added: “The cost-of-living crisis poses a significant and immediate threat to the defining mission of this government, threatening to worsen living standards in the poorest places and further entrench unacceptably high place-based inequalities.”The analysis – the first of its kind since Rishi Sunak’s widely panned Spring Statement last month – uses six key indicators of deprivation to rank how vulnerable an area will be to falling living standards. The indicators are the number of households likely to face fuel poverty, food insecurity and child poverty, as well as the number of adults claiming universal credit, in low paid work or economically inactive.Intriguingly, of the 31 areas set to be hardest hit, 16 are covered by old Red Wall constituencies which shifted from Labour to the Conservatives during 2019’s general election. It means that the very areas that swept Mr Johnson to power face being left further behind than ever.Mr Franklin added: “Voters on low pay, experiencing food and fuel poverty or pushed out of work altogether, are on the margins of extreme vulnerability – but they are also in many of our most marginal seats. That adds political saliency to the urgent moral case for addressing the cost-of-living crisis.”Lisa Nandy, shadow secretary of state for levelling up and MP for Wigan, said the report proved that “opposite of levelling up” was now happening.She said: “This new research reveals the inadequacy of the government’s response to the cost-of-living crisis facing families. We need to get money back into people’s pockets.“You can only level up if people have money to spend in their local communities.”The government’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities did not immediately respond to request for comment. More

Priti Patel’s plan to criminalise refugees crossing the English Channel is in danger after the House of Lords rejected the proposed law for a second time.In a rare move, peers voted again to remove the offence of arriving in the UK – including British waters – without permission from the Nationality and Borders Bill.It was one of 12 defeats suffered by the government on Monday night, when peers including the former lord chief justice warned that the plans violate the Refugee Convention.The House of Lords moved to ensure any move to offshore asylum seekers was subject to approval of both houses of parliament, and that the government must give a costs breakdown.It also backed measures to prevent the prosecution of people rescuing migrants at sea, while taking steps to prevent asylum seekers being treated differently based on how they enter the UK.In addition, peers renewed their demand that asylum seekers be allowed to work if no decision had been taken on their claim after six months, as well as enable unaccompanied child asylum seekers in Europe to join family in the UK.They backed measures to guarantee extended support for confirmed victims of modern slavery or trafficking, and inserted a clause to ensure that unlawful citizenship deprivations can be reversed.The votes mean that Lords amendments will go back to MPs for a second time, having been rejected earlier this year.If the “ping-pong” process continues without either house giving way before the current parliamentary session ends, there is a risk of the bill falling.Official procedure states that argument usually “does not go beyond the stage” already reached by the Nationality and Borders Bill.“A situation where one house insists on its amendment after the other house has insisted on its disagreement to it is described as ‘double insistence’,” says Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary practice and procedure. “A bill is normally lost.”The House of Lords has already insisted twice on amendments, and MPs will have a second chance to either agree them or send back changes that peers will agree to.Ukraine’s ambassador says ‘at least’ 100,000 refugees could come to UKThere is no binding rule to how many times a bill can go back and forth, and Erskine May states that “if there is a desire to save a bill, some variation in the proceedings may be devised”.Several peers acknowledged the unusual situation during Monday night’s debate.Moving a successful motion to ensure the law complies with the Refugee Convention, Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti said: “I take the primacy of the other place [Commons] very seriously.”But she said the amendment was necessary as an “insurance policy”, as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has said the proposals violate the convention and the government denies it.“It offers protection as of right, not dependent on executive largesse to pick and choose which refugees should be saved and which continent or conflict these should be escaping from,” she added.Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddick said that “double insisting on the removal of the provisions from the bill would have serious consequences”.Lord Judge, the former lord chief justice, said that although the government insists its plans comply with international law, “a number of us take the view that these provisions do not so comply”.“We respectfully suggest that the Commons should be asked to think again and reflect on the consequences if the advice that it is receiving is wrong and the advice that we are suggesting is right,” he added.Lord Brown, a former Supreme Court judge, said: “I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR, the body responsible for that under the convention.”Conservative peer Lord Cormack, who was previously a Tory MP for 40 years, said he had watched the progress of the bill with “increasing disappointment and sadness”.“I became increasingly convinced that this largely unnecessary bill is narrow and mean-minded and at times approaches the vindictive,” he added, saying that the proposals were in danger of “breaching international law and also international humanity”.Lord Cormack said MPs had treated the House of Lords “with disdain” by dismissing carefully argued amendments, and that there was “no proper scrutiny” in the Commons.He added: “We are talking about some of the most persecuted and endangered of humanity, who are not motivated by legislation when they catch the train or drive their car or get into boats, but are motivated by a desire to enjoy a freer and better way of life.”Lord Kerr, a crossbench peer, said the government had not evidenced its claims that the laws would deter dangerous journeys to the UK.“We all know that the way to stop tragedy in the Channel is to open a safe route,” he added.“I think the concern across the country about the way that the government are treating the victims of Putin’s war in Ukraine shows that we are more in tune with the national mood than the Home Office.”Baroness Williams, a Home Office minister, had argued for the House of Lords to drop its amendments.“We want to do everything we can to deter people from making dangerous and, sadly, as we have seen, often fatal journeys,” she said.“That is why we want to change the law to provide prosecutors with additional flexibility when someone has ‘arrived in’ but not technically ‘entered’ the UK.”The law would widen the current offence of illegal entry, which cannot be committed by migrants who are rescued at sea or aim to claim asylum immediately in port, to mean it can be applied to that group.It comes after at least a dozen prosecutions were quashed and the exposure of an unlawful Home Office blanket phone seizure policy for boat migrants.Lady Williams said the government was “seeking prosecutions only in the most egregious cases”, such as when migrants have put others at risk or caused channel disruption. More

Five million households will be forced to spend at least 10 per cent of their budget on energy bills after Friday’s price cap hike, according to the latest analysis.The prediction comes as the limit on bills leaps by 54 per cent, adding an average of £693 a year to the cost for those on default tariffs.A number of major energy suppliers websites crashed Thursday as customers raced to submit meter readings ahead of the increase. Users reported being unable to access the websites of energy giants such as British Gas, SSE, E.ON, and EDF.The price rises will double the number of households in “fuel stress” – a term for those spending 10 per cent or more of their income after housing costs on energy bills – overnight from 2.5 to 5 million in England alone, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. The figures account for chancellor Rishi Sunak’s recent intervention to ease the impact.With the price cap expected to rise sharply again later this year, the think tank said a further 2.5 million households could fall into “fuel stress” in the autumn unless more support is provided, bringing the total to 7.5 million. This is based on an estimated £500 increase in the price cap on 1 October.Shadow climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, hit out at the prime minister and Sunak for not doing more to help. “On the day when energy bills rise by record amounts for millions of families, it is shameful that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak are refusing to go further to support the British people facing a cost of living crisis,” he said.“It tells you everything you need to know about this government that they stand by whilst working people, families, and pensioners suffer.”In early February, Mr Sunak announced a support plan worth £350 – via a £150 council tax rebate and a repayable upfront £200 discount – for each of “the vast majority of households” to take the “sting” out of the rise.But there are mounting concerns among some Tory MPs that the chancellor’s lack of fresh measures for the poorest households could take a toll in May’s local elections.“There’s such a profound problem of seeming tone deaf when you’re out trying to drum up support,” one senior Conservative MP said. “People are starting to see their neighbours tighten their belts, and the demand build on local charities,” they added.“The spring statement failed to help the most needy,” another Tory MP told The Independent. “It also failed to keep taxes down, too. The fuel duty cut’s been swallowed up as well, judging by most drivers’ experience. No one feels like a winner when they’re trying to sell high taxes and little [financial] support.”The 1 April is the crest of the “acute” cost of living wave, according to the Resolution Foundation, as the price cap rise combines with other cost pressures in the economy to push inflation to a 40-year high.Mr Sunak’s efforts to assist the economic shock from energy bills via council tax rebates will miss out more than half a million of the poorest households, it was warned.Jonathan Marshall, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: “Another increase in energy bills this autumn hastens the need for more immediate support, as well as a clear, long-term strategy for improving home insulation, ramping up renewable and nuclear electricity generation, and reforming energy markets so that families’ energy bills are less dependent on global gas prices.”Johnson told MPs on 9 March that he would be setting out an energy independence plan for this country in the course of the next few days. However, an energy strategy has yet to emerge and it is unclear when it will be published. The Treasury has reportedly resisted some of the long-term cost implications.Ofgem, which regulates gas and electricity markets in Great Britain, announced on 3 February that the energy price cap – designed to prevent firms from making excessive profits – will increase for approximately 22 million customers from 1 April.The regulator calculates it means the average household on default tariffs paying by direct debit will see a £693 increase to £1,971 per year for gas and electricity. There will be an increase of £708 from £1,309 to £2,017 a year for the average prepayment customer. Ofgem has said the increase is “driven by a record rise in global gas prices over the last six months”.Freezing temperatures are due to hit as the price cap rise kicks in. Met Office meteorologist Tom Morgan said: “People will wake up [on Friday] to temperatures just below freezing, -1 or -2 across most of England and Wales for example, but by the afternoon we’ll see temperatures at 8 or 9C.”He added: “Once again, on Friday night we’ll see temperatures widely fall below freezing across the whole of the UK and in the early hours of Saturday morning, possibly down to -4, -5C even in the south of England.”The government is “in no doubt” that rising energy prices “will be a significant challenge for a majority of the British public”, No 10 said on Thursday.The prime minister’s official spokesman highlighted the support offered by the government and said: “We would encourage anyone that is concerned to make sure that they are availing themselves of the support that is available to them.” More

The High Court has ruled home secretary Priti Patel’s secret policy of confiscating asylum seekers’ mobile phones as unlawful.The Home Office has had a secret blanket policy of seizing phones belonging to asylum seekers who had arrived in the UK via clandestine routes, such as in small boats. The phones’ data was then extracted.Three asylum seekers – known only as HM, KA, and MH – one of whom has been recognised as a potential victim of trafficking, filed a judicial review of Ms Patel’s policy at the High Court.All three had their phones seized between April and September 2020, without them being able to tell their families they had arrived in the UK or having enough time to note down important phone numbers.Officials had threatened them with criminal penalties unless they provided the codes to unlock their phones, lawyers for the claimaints said.The data stored in their phones was later extracted. Their lawyers claim that thousands of others arriving to the UK in small boats had their phones confiscated, and hundreds of others had their data cloned.The phones of the three claimaints were only returned months later after the legal action had started, the lawyers said.The asylum seekers were unable to contact their families to say that they were safe, and neither did they have time to note down their important numbers, they added.But the court has ruled that the policy was unlawful and breached human rights and data protection laws.Privacy International, a leading human rights NGO, intervened in the case. It said that Ms Patel had denied the existence of the phone policy but admitted to the confiscation of phones, and cloning of data still retained by the Home Office.It has also been revealed that Ms Patel has self-referred herself to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for breaching data protection law. But she decided not to inform the many hundreds of asylum seekers that were affected by the breach.The home secretary that immigration officials had the right – under section 48 of the Immigration Act 2016 – to search the arrivals by small boat, take their phones, and extract data from the devices.But the High Court ruled that the law could not be used to carry out personal searches and, as a result, the searches of the claimants and the subsequent seizures of their phones was unlawful for this reason too.The policy also infringed their right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the court ruled.The Home Office’s demand for the phones’ unlocking codes under the threat of criminal penalties was also found to be unlawful and in breach of human rights.Clare Jennings of Gold Jennings – a solicitor firm that represented claimant HM – said: “Such systematic extraction of personal data from vulnerable asylum seekers, who were not suspects in any crime, was an astonishing and unparalleled assault on fundamental privacy rights. “Today’s judgment provided much needed clarification as to the extent of immigration officers powers of search and seizure and confirmed beyond doubt that the home secretary’s policy of seizing all mobile phones from small boat arrivals was unlawful.”Daniel Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn – the solicitors that represented KH and MA – said: “All of this had real impacts on very vulnerable people, who lost touch with their families and couldn’t get their asylum documentation, while the phones languished on a shelf for many months, many which now cannot be returned. “I am pleased that today’s judgment vindicates our clients and all those affected. It is another example of how the Home Office’s hostile environment policy disregards basic human rights and dignity.”Lucie Audibert of Privacy International said: “It’s quite clear that the Home Office considered that asylum seekers arriving on UK shores did not have the same privacy rights as other people – it unashamedly granted itself unlawful powers to systematically seize and search their phones, even when they weren’t suspected of any crime. “This is in line with this government’s (and many others’) efforts to criminalise migration and rob migrants of their basic human rights. We welcome today’s judgment and hope the claimants will obtain due redress for these unacceptable violations of their rights.” More

Thousands of disabled pupils and those with special needs could have their school transport taken away because of the spiralling cost of fuel, council chiefs are warning.Coach and minibus companies and taxi firms are demanding higher fees to cover their higher petrol and diesel bills.In some cases, transport providers are demanding an extra 20 per cent when their contracts are up for renewal.But county councils, which coordinate the services, say the budgets of hard-pressed local authorities, which have already been set for the coming year, will not extend any further.Without extra funding, the councils may be forced to cut other services or cancel the transport, they say.The chancellor’s 5p cut in fuel duty is unlikely to make much difference because the Ukraine war, wider fears over energy supplies and inflation have all pushed up prices at the pumps.In a survey for the County Councils Network, almost two-thirds of councils said their expenditure on school transport for disabled and special needs pupils was “unsustainable”, and 34 per cent said it was “difficult”.Even before fuel prices started soaring, these costs increased from £175m in 2016 to £244m last year.At least 51,550 disabled and special needs pupils need free school transport – up from 41,185  in 2016-17, according to data from nearly 30 county authorities.The network said some transport providers were activating “break” clauses in their contracts, giving councils 28 days’ notice of handing back routes.“The local authority then has to retender for the route, but new bids are coming back at up to 20 per cent more because of the fuel crisis,” a spokesman said.“So those councils will either be left having to pay more – or seeing loads of young people not have access to school transport.”A report by the network also found that councils have had to cut back on eligibility for mainstream free school transport, with almost 20,000 fewer pupils qualifying than five years earlier.Many special educational needs and disabilities pupils require coach and minibuses or taxis – transport offered by the very companies that are worst hit by record fuel hikes, the organisation says.Keith Glazier, children’s services spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said: “Free school transport is a lifeline for many pupils, but local authorities have been placed in a difficult position owing fuel prices reaching record highs.“Transport providers are understandably concerned they are paying much more than a year ago, but it means councils either pay the higher rates they are requesting or potentially see thousands of pupils unable to access free school transport, which is a statutory responsibility for local authorities.“With our budgets set for the coming year, there is little wriggle room for local authorities, except to reduce other vital services.”The report calls for more government support.County authorities across England spent a total of £555.6m on free school transport last year, up from £472.6m in 2016-17. The increase is largely down to a 33 per cent rise in expenditure for disabled and special needs pupils, figures show.Over the past three years, the average cost of transport per pupil has risen by £206 to £6,099 a year, due to rising costs, such as fuel.All children under eight qualify for free transport if their school is more than two miles away, and over-eights qualify if their school is more than three miles away.The Independent has asked the government to respond. More

The badger cull did not contribute to a significant fall in levels of cattle tuberculosis, a “landmark” report has found.The peer-reviewed findings prompted the RSPCA to call for an immediate and permanent halt to the government’s culling programme.But the government disputes the study’s conclusions, saying the data has been manipulated by the authors, who have campaigned against the cull.Between the start of the cull in 2013 and the end of 2020, it’s estimated more than 140,000 badgers were shot dead, mostly in west and southwest England, in an attempt to eradicate the disease in cattle.In 2020-21, more than 27,000 cattle in England had to be slaughtered to tackle the disease, which costs farmers thousands of pounds.Badgers are carriers for TB, but the science over how to tackle it is hotly contested.The government has always insisted that the cull programme, costing more than £100m, has successfully reduced the disease.A 2019 study in Nature showed “statistically significant” drops in cattle TB incidence in Gloucestershire and Somerset after four years of culling.But the authors of the new research say they looked at a much larger number of herds and badgers across a wider region and for a longer period, 10 years.Cull opponents have long argued that culling makes surviving animals flee the area, potentially carrying the disease with them, so spreading it more widely.The new paper, published in the journal Veterinary Record, based on the government’s own data, concludes there was no detectable link between the culling of badgers and any decline in the level of bovine TB in cattle herds.The study authors, ecologist Thomas Langton and vets Mark Jones and Iain McGill, have all campaigned previously against the cull – and the government hit back, saying the paper had been produced to fit their agenda and that its cull strategy is working. The research compared the prevalence of bovine TB in cull and non-cull areas in high-risk zones between 2013 and 2019.The authors said their analyses showed that while the disease peaked and began to decline, there was no statistical evidence that the rate and nature of the decline was different in the two types of area. The fall in TB rates was instead down to the introduction of cattle-based measures including more intensive testing and movement controls, the paper’s authors said.The government has previously promised to end culling, replacing it with vaccines, and is carrying out cattle vaccine trials. But the programme has continued and the mass shooting of badgers is still planned to go on until at least 2025. Ministers have promised that this year will be the last when four-year licences are issued.Tom Langton, principal author and consulting biologist of the new report, said: “As the bovine TB epidemic continues to spread across England, government claims on badger culling ‘having worked’ are supposition, using small amounts of data from small areas over short periods.“Here, we have a real-world analysis, using extensive data from across England’s high-risk area, supported by comprehensive statistical analysis.“It is what farm veterinarians, farmers and the public should already have been told regarding this continuing animal health emergency.“Hard-working beef and dairy farmers should be given the advice and support that they need, to protect hundreds of thousands of domestic and wild animal lives and to prevent ruined farming livelihoods.”Emma Slawinski, of the RSPCA, said:  “We warmly welcome this landmark study. In the face of this conclusive evidence, the government should immediately call a permanent halt to its cruel, ineffective and arbitrary programme based around the mass slaughter of badgers, and focus on cattle-based solutions.“For too long the government has chosen to look the other way as it determinedly pursued an ill-conceived course of action with no scientific basis and no success, instead promoting cruelty and wasting time and money.”A government spokesperson said: “This paper has been produced to fit a clear campaign agenda and manipulates data in a way that makes it impossible to see the actual effects of badger culling on reducing TB rates. “It is disappointing to see it published in a scientific journal.”Government figures show that the overall TB rate in England fell last year. More

Hundreds of England’s care homes could be closed and care rationed because the government has “seriously underestimated” the costs of a shake-up, experts are warning.Widespread closures would leave hundreds of thousands of elderly and vulnerable residents homeless.Those in the southeast, the east and the southwest would be hardest hit, according to a new study.Under a package of social care reforms announced in September, ministers are aiming to make care fees fairer between private and state fee payers.At the moment, residents who self-fund all their care pay up to 40 per cent more on average than those eligible for state support, for whom their local authority arranges care, and care homes charge councils lower rates.The government says it wants to end this “persistent unfairness” by allowing private payers to ask their local authority to arrange their care, starting next October, and to increase the fees that councils pay to make the care market sustainable.It argues the reforms will protect people needing to go into a care home from unpredictable costs.Ministers have allocated £378m a year to compensate councils for the new “fair cost of care”.But analysis by healthcare market company LaingBuisson for the County Councils Network says the government “seriously underestimated” the costs of its proposals by at least £854m a year.The shortfall could lead to widespread closures and a shortage of beds, and trigger a deterioration in the quality of care between local authority and private placements, the study warns.Care England, the main organisation representing providers of the roughly 13,368 homes in England, says the funding allocation could lead to “catastrophic financial failure”.And council chiefs, who are already facing severe financial pressures, say they would be unable to make up for the shortfall without cutting services or imposing significant council tax rises.The new study calculates care providers would lose £560m a year – a loss of 3.8 per cent of revenue. Care homes in all but one region in England would be hit, the report says, but the largest losses would be in the southeast, east, and southwest, as they have the largest proportion of private fee payers.From next month, National Insurance contributions are being increased by 1.25 per cent to fund the new health and social care levy, although it will not be ringfenced for councils until 2025.Martin Green, chief executive of Care England and chair of the Care Provider Alliance, said the report showed the annual cost to councils after the changes would be at least three times current government funding allocations, He added: “If not immediately revised, this could lead to catastrophic financial failure to be experienced by providers, leading to home closures, and an inability to invest in services for some of the most vulnerable members of society now and into the future.”Martin Tett, adult social care spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said: “There is a clear consensus from those that work in adult social care that the government’s Fair Cost for Care proposals are laudable – we all support the principle of making the system fairer. But the government has seriously underestimated the costs of its proposals.”He said the proposals could result in widespread care home closures and a rationing of care, adding: “Councils will be left between a rock and a hard place – either by raising council tax to excessive levels and cutting local services, or by seeing widespread care home closures in their areas.”The government’s own modelling is different from that of LaingBuisson.A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Our wide-ranging and ambitious reform of the adult social care system will protect people from unpredictable costs, offers outstanding quality and will be accessible to those who need it.“We recognise that the type of genuinely transformational change set out in our White Paper, People at the Heart of Care, cannot be accomplished overnight so we are providing £1.36bn over the next three years to support local authorities to make significant progress towards paying providers a fair rate of care. “This includes £162m in 2022-23, followed by £600m in each of the following two years.“As part of our gradual implementation, we will review our approach ahead of allocating money for 2023-24, working closely with local authorities and providers to monitor market changes, and determine appropriate grant conditions, guidance, and distribution mechanisms.” More

Sajid Javid said it would be difficult for him to “offer the time” to host Ukrainian refugees in his home as he urged those considering signing up to help to be sure they can “fulfil the obligations” of the scheme.Housing and communities minister Michael Gove will set out later the details of a new programme through which people in the UK can offer to host Ukrainian refugees in their homes.Families will receive a thank you payment of £350 a month and be expected to commit to a minimum of six months of housing an individual or a group.But the health secretary said if help cannot be provided this way, there are other methods of offering support.Mr Javid was asked on BBC Breakfast whether he would consider hosting refugees in his home.“I’m starting to have a conversation with my wife on that and I think many households – as you say, and I’m pleased you brought this up – are probably thinking about this across the country,” he said.“It’s important that anyone that becomes a host, that they can fulfil the obligations of a host, that they can spend time with these families and help, but there are many ways that we can all help and whatever I do at a personal level, I will most certainly be helping.”Mr Javid told LBC that he has donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Ukraine.And he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “I do think, for me personally, it will be hard to offer the time that I think a host would reasonably (be) expected to have available to help the family that’s arriving, to help to integrate them into British society.”Downing Street indicated that the prime minister will not be taking any Ukrainian refugees in at No 10.The prime minister’s official spokesman said it was down to individual ministers whether they chose to give accommodation to a refugee.“There are specific challenges around security on housing people in No 10,” the spokesman said.“Various ministers have been asked about this. Obviously it will come down to individual circumstances. This is a significant commitment.”Transport secretary Grant Shapps said he would apply to join the hosting scheme.In a tweet he said: “We’ve spent the past few weeks as a family discussing the devastating situation in Ukraine, and so we intend to apply today to join other UK households in offering our home to provide refuge to Ukrainians until it is safe for them to return to their country.”On Sunday, Mr Gove, was asked if he would take in a Ukrainian refugee.He told the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme: “I’m exploring what I can do, I know that there are others who have. Without going into my personal circumstances, there are a couple of things I need to sort out – but yes.”He said there are potentially “hundreds of thousands of people” in the UK willing to take Ukrainians into their homes through the Government’s new sponsorship scheme, which he is due to outline on Monday.Mr Javid was asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain whether, instead of Britons offering up space, it would be better if the mansions of sanctioned Russian oligarchs were the first place considered.He said: “Not the first place – I don’t think it would be practical to make them the first place – but I do know that that is something that my friend Michael Gove is looking at.“I think there’ll be some legal hurdles to try and do that, but it’s right that he looks broadly to see how we can house more and more Ukrainian refugees.”Mr Javid said it is a “sensible approach” to allow Britons to offer refugees places to stay.“This is an unprecedented situation,” he said. “There are, as we’ve seen across Europe, many millions of refugees and it’s right that Britain plays its role and that we have a scheme that allows British families to play their part and to offer sanctuary.”London mayor Sadiq Khan said it would be a form of “poetic justice” to repurpose the mansions.He told Times Radio: “I, for some time, with others, have been complaining about those Russian oligarchs close to (Vladimir) Putin, using our city to launder money by buying homes or businesses. And what’s doubly heart-breaking about the homes they buy is they’re left empty for years. They’re not homes, they’re gold bricks used to launder money. More