Sadiq Khan's deputy and a scientist the mayor's workplace helps to fund have been accused of working collectively in an try to criticise analysis that questioned the effectiveness of London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

Emails obtained by the Conservative Party beneath the Freedom of Information Act confirmed Professor Frank Kelly of Imperial College London and deputy mayor for the surroundings, Shirley Rodrigues, apparently working collectively to "fight back" towards analysis revealed and publicised by the identical college.

The ULEZ and its expansions have gotten key political dividing traces between the Conservatives and Labour, and have been a part of the explanation the Tories held on to Boris Johnson's former seat in west London in a by-election earlier this 12 months.

Prof Kelly is an knowledgeable on public well being coverage and air high quality.

He can also be the director of the Environmental Research Group (ERG), a physique which supplies air high quality info and analysis within the UK, which has acquired lots of of 1000's of kilos from the mayor's workplace, amongst different sources.

According to the Greater London Authority, £757,000 over 4 years was the "vast majority" of the cash offered - and was used for the Breathe London undertaking, which entails putting in air high quality screens throughout the capital.

The Conservatives have accused Prof Kelly and Mr Khan's workplace of getting "an alarmingly cosy relationship".

Their important accusation stems from the response by Prof Kelly and Ms Rodrigues to a research revealed by Imperial in 2021, which examined the influence of the ULEZ over a interval of 12 weeks.

Emails present the mayor's workplace - together with Ms Rodrigues - contacted Prof Kelly within the wake of this research being revealed and reported on to "challenge some of the misunderstandings" in it.

The mayor's workplace apparently took difficulty with the restricted time frame over which the research was performed.

Prof Kelly informed the Labour mayor's workforce his college "is not keen for us to put a direct contradiction" out within the media - however he was completely satisfied to "fight back", in accordance with the emails.

The mayor's workplace additionally provided to place Prof Kelly in contact with senior Labour determine David Lammy for a "friendly" interview on the London MP's radio present.

'Khan conspired to silence analysis'

Peter Fortune, a Conservative member of the Greater London Assembly, stated: "Science relies on open, transparent debate.

"It is unacceptable that Sadiq Khan and his deputy conspired to silence reliable analysis as a result of it could injury the mayor's fame and credibility.

"Sadiq Khan has claimed he is just following the science, yet he has been using scientific advisors to protect his own interests.

"The mayor's personal unbiased influence evaluation reveals the ULEZ enlargement can have a negligible impact on air high quality, whereas hitting the poorest Londoners hardest.

"That is why we need to tackle air pollution where it is, instead of taxing where it isn't."

Read extra:Where the expanded ULEZ will coverProtesters against zone expansion stop London trafficKhan pleads with councils as cameras vandalisedULEZ expansion legal, High Court rules

'Normal and correct' to work with specialists

A spokesperson for the mayor 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 among the world-leading educational establishments taking a look at air high 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."

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

The assertion added: "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 tutorial specialists to disagree with how different educational research are interpreted, as was the case right here."