The Tory candidate suggests a lower salary for the role but hasn’t committed to replacing the current Night Czar, Amy Lamé.

Conservative London mayoral candidate Susan Hall has said she is still “considering” whether to appoint a new Night Czar if she wins the election, despite being critical of the current incumbent, Amy Lamé. With just ten days until Londoners head to the polls, Hall has made it clear that while she intends to remove Lamé, her manifesto remains ambiguous about whether she would abolish the position or replace her.

Hall has long condemned Lamé as the epitome of “chumocracy” under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan’s administration, labelling her appointment as one based on political connections. However, while Hall is yet to clarify the future of the role, she has confirmed that any new appointee would receive a lower salary than the current £117,000 annually.

“This is taxpayers’ money,” Hall stated. “It’s Londoners’ money, and it’s disgraceful to throw it at friends for a position like this.”

Last month, Hall criticised Lamé’s appointment as “nepotism” in an article for the Standard, citing her close ties to Khan. She also pointed to the example of Manchester’s Night Czar, who performs the same role without payment, as a more cost-effective approach.

On the possibility of appointing a “chum” herself, Hall responded firmly, saying, “I don’t have any political chums – absolutely not.” She continued, “I’ll appoint people who are experts, not my friends, because I’m serious about getting things right in London.”

Khan, however, has defended Lamé’s role, rejecting any suggestion of nepotism. He argued that Lamé was appointed through a fair and transparent process and that her work has been valuable in supporting the city’s vibrant night-time economy.

Hall’s campaign focuses on improving London’s nightlife and safety. She has pledged to extend the Night Tube to the Hammersmith and City line and beyond, believing this will greatly benefit the capital’s night-time economy. At the same time, she has emphasised the need for safer streets, noting that “if people witness nothing but gangs and violence, they won’t return.”

Hall has been a vocal critic of Khan’s handling of both the night economy and crime. She stated, “Sadiq Khan is getting everything wrong right now, and it’s affecting businesses across London.” Khan, on the other hand, has defended his record, stating that crime in London has decreased since 2016, despite population growth, and blamed national cuts for worsening crime across the country.

London’s mayoral election is scheduled for Thursday, May 2, alongside elections for the London Assembly.

Lack of consistent government support leaves hospices struggling with funding deficits and creating disparities in palliative care access.

Members of Parliament have raised concerns over the increasing dependence of hospices on charity donations, with little backing from government funding, leading to growing financial strains and a “postcode lottery” for palliative care. MPs on both sides of the House of Commons expressed alarm over the situation, highlighting the uncertainty and challenges faced by hospices in providing essential services.

Richard Drax, Conservative MP for South Dorset, who has personal ties to the hospice sector, stated that hospices are excessively reliant on public generosity to survive. He explained that approximately two-thirds of adult hospice services’ funding comes from charitable fundraising, with a staggering four-fifths of funds for children’s services also relying on donations. Drax called for a well-funded, sustainable funding model to ensure hospices could continue offering crucial care without relying on charity.

Sally-Ann Hart, Conservative MP for Hastings and Rye, also stressed that the current funding model is unsustainable, placing unnecessary pressure on hospices. She explained that hospices rely heavily on the generosity of local donors, but this model is neither reliable nor scalable, and it jeopardises the sector’s long-term viability. Hart emphasised the need for better end-of-life care and highlighted the increasing strain on services due to rising operational costs.

Labour MP Colleen Fletcher from Coventry North East called for more sustainable and resilient funding to address the inequality and lack of access to hospice services, which vary significantly across different regions. Fletcher argued that fair and sufficient funding is essential for meeting the demand for hospice care, whether in inpatient units or at-home services.

Peter Gibson, Conservative MP for Darlington, described the funding issue as “a matter of life and death,” noting that while the government provided substantial financial support to hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic, many have since failed to secure increased funding to cope with rising operational costs.

Former Conservative minister Dame Maria Miller raised concerns about the potential for hospices to be absorbed by the NHS, which could undermine their independence and their ability to provide flexible, personalised care. She called for longer-term contracts and more certainty in funding for hospices, ensuring they can plan effectively for the future.

Health Minister Helen Whately responded by reiterating the government’s commitment to a “localised approach” through integrated care boards (ICBs), which are responsible for commissioning healthcare services. While acknowledging the challenges, Whately stated that there are no easy solutions and promised continued efforts to ensure that palliative and end-of-life care receives the attention and support it requires.

Katherine Birbalsingh slams the Home Secretary for using her school’s legal case to further her career ambitions.

Katherine Birbalsingh, the headteacher of Michaela Community School in Brent, has criticised Suella Braverman for turning the school into a “political football” after the former Home Secretary’s public support for the institution. The criticism follows a recent High Court case in which Michaela School successfully defended its policy that bans prayer rituals on the premises, a stance that had been challenged by a student claiming it violated her right to religious freedom.

Braverman, a Conservative MP, was one of the co-founders of Michaela alongside Birbalsingh. She had also chaired the school’s board of governors until 2018. In a recent statement, Braverman praised Michaela, calling it “one of the best schools in the country” and attributed its existence to the Conservative government’s Free School policy.

However, Birbalsingh has now accused Braverman of exploiting the school’s legal victory to boost her own political career. On social media platform X, Birbalsingh wrote: “I really am not happy with Suella Braverman using our school as a political football to enhance her political career. It is as unacceptable as the BBC doing their best to smear us.” She also criticised the BBC’s coverage of the case, adding, “Everyone seems to have an agenda. Both Braverman and the BBC can take a hike.”

The dispute arose after a student challenged the school’s policy that bans prayer rituals, including during lunch breaks, on the grounds of discrimination against her Islamic faith. Her legal team argued that allowing a brief prayer session at lunchtime would not disrupt lessons and would respect her religious obligations. The school, however, justified the ban by saying that it sought to maintain social cohesion and avoid logistical complications.

In a judgment handed down earlier this week, the High Court ruled that the ban did not infringe on the student’s rights and deemed it “proportionate” in light of the school’s aim to foster an inclusive environment.

Braverman has yet to respond to Birbalsingh’s remarks.