News

Andrew Pendleton, Deputy CEO and Director of Strategy and Advocacy

Estimated reading time 4 minutes

In the middle of all the sound and fury about the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election stands one simple truth. Air pollution is a killer, affecting all of the organs in our bodies for all of our, sometimes shortened, lives and costing the NHS billions; it must be reduced.

Set against the dire health effects of air pollution, it’s a strange quirk of politics that plans to expand the area covered by the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the whole of greater London has become a political football. But even writing out the words long-form rather than using its now increasingly maligned acronym – ULEZ – makes the whole thing feel less shrill. How has it come to this? 

The inner London ULEZ has been a huge success. It’s reduced the number of the most polluting vehicles on the road by 74,000 and has delivered cleaner air for 1,362 schools in the current zone. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan – who has been the one consistent and clear political voice in the debate continually speaking up for cleaner air – plans to extend the scheme to cover the whole of the city, beginning this Autumn.  

So why is there such a political kerfuffle and why do politicians think the ULEZ expansion was responsible for the outcome of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election? That’s a very good question. The reaction has been a sense of relief for the Conservatives and disappointment for Labour, but it serves the interests of both to point towards the clean air zone expansion as the underlying cause, whether true or not. 

At Global Action Plan we recently polled Londoners about their attitudes to the ULEZ. We gave people a number of statements about the ULEZ and asked whether they agreed or disagreed. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were concerned about its impacts on others, such as costs or changes to travel routes, and more than half (52%) felt concerned it will be costly for them. Yet most households won’t actually have to pay a charge under the policy; 9 out of 10 cars driving in the expansion zone on any day are ULEZ compliant.  

So this level of concern about the ULEZ goes far beyond any likely effect. This suggests that the probably deliberate ambiguity of anti-ULEZ messaging about who will have to pay a charge to use their vehicles has had an impact.

The tragedy is that our health and wellbeing, children’s development, the lives of people with severe asthma and reducing the costs faced by the NHS all hinge on the ULEZ expansion’s success. Both government and opposition parties say they want clean air and DEFRA’s official advice includes the implementation of clean air zones like the ULEZ.  

But in a constituency like Uxbridge and South Ruislip, where political competition is fierce, both of the main parties have opted to stand against the ULEZ, rather than try and use their influence over voters and their well-funded communications channels to correct the mendacious and deliberately inaccurate campaigning against it.  

Inevitably, some households that can ill afford it will lose out, which is why the ULEZ is also accompanied by a scrappage scheme that will help lower income households meet the costs of retiring their older car or van. Plus anyone on a disability benefit, local charities and some businesses will have a three-year grace period to change their vehicle if it is non-compliant.  

It would be wrong to argue that there are no trade-offs – almost no policy worth implementing is without trade-offs – but the impacts of air pollution are far more grave, dangerous, far-reaching and unfair than the costs of the ULEZ. Plus the ULEZ reduces climate emissions, which, as we can see from the fires in Greece and floods in Portugal, becomes even more urgent by the day.  

As an election looms, it’s inevitable that the political debate will become shrill and febrile. But we need responsible politicians to support policies like the ULEZ – or at least tell us how they will reduce air pollution from vehicles – and not spread misinformation for political gain.