Sadiq Khan accused of attempting to ‘squash’ scientific ‘dissent’ over Ulez
L
ondon mayor Sadiq Khan has been accused of trying to “squash dissent”, after his deputy requested a City Hall-funded knowledgeable to counter science that questioned the advantages of a cost on polluting autos.
Shirley Rodrigues requested an educational, who was in receipt of funding from Mr Khan’s workplace, on two events to counter analysis and reporting concerning the extremely low emission zone (Ulez) within the capital.
Ms Rodrigues requested Professor Frank Kelly whether or not he could be prepared to “set the record straight”, after his fellow Imperial College London college teachers revealed a examine suggesting the central London Ulez had a comparatively small impact on air air pollution at its launch.
Ulez has proved controversial, with the Conservatives citing native anger towards an enlargement of the cost to each London borough as the rationale it was capable of pull off a shock victory in final month’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election – the seat vacated by former prime minister Boris Johnson.
I’m deeply involved concerning the injury this deceptive examine is doing, each to our credibility and to low emission zones as a coverage instrument
The enlargement, which was challenged within the courts by 5 councils, of the zone previous the north and south round roads will see drivers in outer London pay a £12.50 each day price from August 29 if their autos don’t meet required emissions requirements.
Susan Hall, the Tory mayoral candidate in subsequent yr’s City Hall election, has pledged to scrap the enlargement.
Emails between Ms Rodrigues and Prof Kelly, which had been obtained through a Conservative Party freedom of data request and shared with the PA news company, present the deputy mayor contacted the air high quality knowledgeable on November 16 2021 to focus on a examine revealed by Imperial College, which she described as “misleading”.
The examine was coated within the Daily Mail and by Sky News, with the broadcaster reporting that the analysis confirmed Ulez’s introduction in 2019 had “resulted in only small improvements in air quality soon after it was implemented”.
City Hall says that analysing schemes comparable to Ulez on the outset shouldn’t be “appropriate” as they take time for air high quality enhancements to be felt via motorists switching to cleaner autos or ditching their vehicles for public transport.
Ms Rodrigues, in her correspondence with Prof Kelly, stated: “I am deeply concerned about the damage this misleading study is doing, both to our credibility and to low emission zones as a policy instrument.
“Is there anything you can do or advise to help us set the record straight?”
After Prof Kelly suggests he could be prepared to help the Greater London Authority (GLA), Ms Rodrigues the subsequent day emails once more saying: “I do appreciate that you don’t want to have a ‘fight’ with another part of Imperial but The Times… have also picked up (the report) and (are) repeating the mistake.
“Is there anything you’d be happy to put on the record now?”
Ms Rodrigues, accountable for atmosphere and vitality coverage, goes on to work with him to draft a press assertion to ship out in his title.
In February 2023, when an article seems within the Daily Telegraph, Mr Khan’s deputy once more emails Prof Kelly asking him whether or not he might write to the newspaper to “challenge some of the misunderstandings” within the reporting.
Prof Kelly stated Imperial College was towards placing out a “direct contradiction” to the piece however stated: “As always, I’m happy to fight back.”
City Hall supplied to arrange an interview with David Lammy, Labour’s shadow overseas secretary and a presenter on LBC, promising a “friendly” expertise because the veteran MP was thought to be “very supportive”.
A query submitted in March by Peter Fortune, a Conservative member of the London Assembly, discovered that the GLA had paid Imperial College Projects nearly £900,000 between 2021 and March 2023, with Prof Kelly’s Environmental Research Group (ERG) analysis included in that funding.
Transport for London stated in September {that a} examine by the ERG, titled London Health Burden of Current Air Pollution and Future Health Benefits of Mayoral Air Quality Policies, was given £45,000 in funding.
Mr Fortune stated: “Science relies on open, transparent debate. It is unacceptable that Sadiq Khan and his deputy conspired to silence legitimate research because it would damage the mayor’s reputation and credibility.
“Sadiq Khan has claimed he is just following the science, yet he has been using scientific advisers to protect his own interests.
“The mayor’s own independent impact assessment shows the Ulez expansion will have a negligible effect on air quality, while hitting the poorest Londoners hardest. That is why we need to tackle air pollution where it is, instead of taxing where it isn’t.”
Writing on Twitter, Mr Fortune added: “The mayor’s office certainly shouldn’t be dictating emails for press releases or squashing dissent.”
A spokeswoman for Mr Khan stated: “It is right, and standard practice across government, that we commission experts to carry out research to inform the work we do.
“Frank Kelly and the Environmental Research Group at Imperial are some of the world-leading academic institutions looking at air quality.
“It is normal and proper to work with these experts to ensure our policies are as effective as possible at dealing with issues such as the high number of deaths, up to 4,000 a year, linked to toxic air in London every year.
“The Ulez analysis from the engineering department at Imperial only paints a partial picture, not accounting for the full lifetime impact of the scheme, and only focusing on its immediate impact around its launch.
“It is commonplace for academic experts to disagree with how other academic studies are interpreted, as was the case here.”
The mayor’s workplace stated Prof Kelly and his workforce are impartial teachers whose work shouldn’t be influenced by the funding our bodies they work with.
Imperial College declined to remark.