I try to avoid writing about the news, unless I happen to get there first, something I’ve managed once or twice.
But the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is on the horns of a dilemma, where some of us get to participate. It’s the first time that a law about climate change very clearly impacts voters pockets. As a result it has turned into a political football.
The people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip were given the opportunity to cast a protest vote against the expansion of ULEZ, by putting a cross in Steve Tuckwell’s conservative box. He campaigned exclusively on this issue, perhaps a sleight of hand trick to distract from a woeful government record?
Despite substantial swings against the Conservatives in all three by-elections, the strategy in Uxbridge, fighting the one issue, returned a narrow 495 vote margin of victory over Labour’s Danny Beales.
Was he wrong to do that? Of course not. Recognising that it was a hot topic of debate, gave Tuckwell one last throw of the dice to keep the seat blue, repeating the result of the previous fourteen parliamentary elections back to 1970.
Tuckwell’s opportunity to deliver on his promise has, however, been severely dented since. On 28th July 2023 the high court challenge brought by a number of Greater London boroughs was dismissed. The outer expansion of ULEZ was indeed lawful. It is also a conservative idea, although the member responsible has since left politics.
In 2015, Boris Johnson, the London Mayor at the time, kicked off this hot potato when he announced plans for a new ultra-low emission zone, covering the same area as the Central London congestion charge. It was expected to begin in September 2020, but Sadiq Khan, Johnson’s successor introduced a _Toxicity Charge_ in 2017 for the most polluting vehicles. It was replaced with ULEZ in April 2019.
The £12.50 daily charge is typically paid by petrol cars and vans, mostly pre-2006, so at least 17 years old and their diesel counterparts, which are pre-2015. It’s based on the amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) each vehicle emits. The gas is particularly harmful to lungs and exacerbates chronic illnesses such as asthma, lung and heart disease. An estimated 4,000 Londoners die prematurely as a direct result of air pollution every year.
Khan has a vision that 80% of trips across London should be taken on foot, by bicycle or public transport by 2040. ULEZ is the stick to support this longer term strategy, forcing people out of their dirty vehicles.
The pandemic saw a significant reduction in public transport use, but new Transport for London (TfL) figures from April 2023 show that tube journeys have returned to more than 90 per cent of 2019, pre-pandemic traffic. Bus usage has followed a similar pattern, despite recent reports suggesting one in five Londoners now work exclusively from home and four out of ten split their weeks between home and office.
Khan’s stick is valuable. In the current ULEZ zone, bounded by the north and south circular roads, it raised £224m in 2022. The scheme is not designed to make a profit and presumably is costly to run even when the cameras and signage have been installed and paid for. If it ever does come out of the red, Khan has promised that any cash will be ploughed back into other transport projects.
Why has the further extension of the scheme been so vehemently opposed by so many Greater London councils? They’re incensed. So much so, they’ve been prepared to take this costly debate to the high court, even though the impact is limited to 10% of the vehicle population in the new extension?
These are all Tory councils, but the voters most effected in these constituencies are living on the breadline, people already paying too much tax and the least likely to benefit from a conservative administration. These people are also unlikely to qualify for benefits aside from a £2000 scrappage scheme, provided they’re currently in receipt of child benefit.
The maths is simple. Their vehicle is effectively worthless. To purchase a vehicle which conforms will cost between £8-10,000, of which they’re expected to pay at least 75% of the cost.
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester has postponed the introduction of their city’s _Clean Air Zone_ (CAZ), which should have been introduced in May 2022. He now believes such schemes are inherently unfair.
As a result, roads in all 10 Greater Manchester boroughs continue to break legal air quality limits set by this government under the Clean Air Strategy 2019 and is the only city region not charging the worse polluting offenders. Cities with clean air zones include Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Tyneside (Newcastle and Gateshead).
Burnham’s argument centres on timing and the belief that a pre-pandemic scheme is no longer appropriate in the new world we now live in. The very real cost-of-living crisis can not be made worse by adding in the rising cost of a new, albeit second hand vehicle.
He’s also taking his fight to the government, demanding £130m in compensation to help support a scrappage scheme, rather than raising revenue through CAZ, hitting the heaviest polluting vehicles.
Khan’s point in support of the charge, has always been that half of all Londoners don’t own a car, and are therefore being disproportionately affected. But that ignores those poorer Londoners who do own a car, a dirty polluting one, who are desperate to keep it, because they know there is no financial alternative.
Khan at least has a significant public transport network to fall back on. In Greater Manchester, some of the 10 boroughs don’t have tram stops or railway stations. The council, the first in 40 years, is taking back control of the local bus network but any improvements won’t start before September (2023).
The Environment Act was passed into law in November 2021 by this government, replacing EU legislation. Many organisations like Friends of the Earth and Mums for Lungs campaigned for WHO targets to be included, especially on the particulate matter (PM 2.5) commonly spewed out by diesels. It didn’t happen and the new act in its current form is unlikely to make a difference to the current levels of air pollution.
It appears that the four conservative run councils which recently lost in the high court are citing a similar argument to Burnham in Manchester. There are poorer transport links in the outer boroughs of London and the lowest income communities will be the most affected.
Maybe so, but it still doesn’t solve the real issue here, which is how to improve the air quality of our cities? Perhaps the question needs to be rephrased to include, _without extending the financial burden of individuals further?_
The science and validity of studies undertaken is also being undermined by political rhetoric. I’m sure Imperial College, London are delighted to hear that their results are no longer correct.
The Conservative party has recently promised to scrap the proposed ULEZ expansion, despite the recent high court decision. There is also no guarantee that the Labour leadership won’t row back on promises which might materially damage the pockets of motorists and businesses.
Meanwhile, BP has recently reported profits of £2bn for the second quarter of 2023 and will return further value to shareholders through a share buyback.
Looney (CEO) said the payouts reflected the company’s confidence in its strategy.