Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

[Stewart Hosie in the Chair]

There are a number of Members who wish to speak. We have plenty of time, but if people could restrict themselves to around six minutes, we should all be doing grand.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone.

I am pleased to have secured this debate on one of the biggest issues affecting my constituency right now. It affects not just Dartford, but areas right across London and the neighbouring counties. It is, of course, Sadiq Khan’s extension of the ultra low emission zone. The decision by the Labour Mayor of London to extend that scheme to cover the whole of London will be catastrophic for my constituency, which neighbours London. The border is not neat; it straddles roads such as Maiden Lane and sits at the end of roads such as The Coppice, Bowmans Road and Stonehill Woods Park. Although their residents are in Kent, they have to enter London just to get out of their road—just to live. They have no choice but to enter London.

Currently, the border with London is fairly frictionless. Thousands of times a day, people drive across that border, often without even knowing it. That is good for London, and good for Kent and other counties bordering London, but now Sadiq Khan is building a financial wall between London and the rest of the country. A small business, particularly in outer London, that relies on customers travelling to it will be crucified by this form of taxation. The line that has been used by those desperately trying to defend the Mayor is that the scheme will not affect many people, but one in seven cars is already affected. Given that the Mayor ignored his own consultation on this scheme and did not include the expansion in his manifesto, as sure as night follows day, he will increase the number of vehicles that will have to pay—all to sort out the financial mess he has got his administration into.

The Mayor’s own consultation shows that 28,000 vehicles will be affected in the London Borough of Sutton alone. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is small business people—those who can least afford to replace their car—who will be affected.

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I think I am right in saying that almost two thirds of the respondents to that consultation, and an even higher proportion of those who responded from outer London and the home counties, opposed the expansion. That consultation, frankly, was a sham; the Mayor’s decision does not reflect what people have told him.

As I say, this is all about trying to sort out Sadiq Khan’s financial mess. Well, Dartfordians should not have to pick up the bill for his financial incompetence. Everyone will be impacted by the expansion of ULEZ, whether directly as a motorist or business, or indirectly by the damaging impact that scheme will have on the local economy.

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to the House. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have been contacted by a number of people who have mobility cars who do not have to pay, but also by those who do have to pay. They are extremely concerned about the financial impact of this decision, given the cost of living crisis. Does he agree that there should be some kind of overall exemption for people who have disabilities, and who require mobility cars to access the public services that we all should be able to access?

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important and good point. Of course, people rely on their motor vehicles; some have no choice whatsoever. If public transport does not go the way that they are going, they have to use their motor vehicle, and she is absolutely right to highlight the impact that this decision will have on disabled people.

As far as exemptions are concerned, I would argue that everybody should be exempt. I do not think anybody should have to pay this charge, because of its nature and the impact it will have on so many people—on everybody around London. It is not just those who own vehicles that breach the ULEZ guidelines who will be affected; it is everybody.

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I have also had representations, and heard my constituents’ concerns, about costs and the transition to green vehicles, but there is another side to this. I am sure he will agree that this is also about air quality, which we need to tackle in London. Has he read that the Mayor has decided to introduce two new temporary exemptions, from January 2023 to October 2027? Those grace periods will apply for those on disabled benefits and with wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Any way we move forward must be inclusive. There are still questions to be answered, including from my constituents.

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact on disabled people. I would reiterate what I said to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron).

I believe that the constituency of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) covers Heathrow airport. This will have a big impact on her constituency; it will stop people accessing that airport and make them go to other airports instead, so I would argue that the expansion has a big impact, and has unintended consequences for many people and businesses.

The Mayor is relying on not just the £12.50 per day charge, but the penalty charges for non-compliance, which make him even more money. The RAC believes that in the first eight months after the expansion of the ULEZ to the south circular, 1.6 million penalty notices were issued. This expansion will be to the whole of London; I shudder to think how many penalty notices will be issued.

We can see why the expansion is so financially and politically attractive to the Mayor of London. Those who must pay his seven-days-a-week charge to enter London cannot and do not vote for him. We are not Londoners in Kent; this is quite literally taxation without representation or accountability. The two areas hit hardest by the expansion are the counties bordering London, which cannot vote for the Mayor, and outer London, which the Mayor does not care about because it is not where the bulk of his votes come from.

The Mayor says that he will bring in a scrappage scheme for the poorest people, so that they can change their car. He is not doing that for those living in Dartford or anywhere else outside London, so the poorest will be hit the hardest. They will be unable to change their car or enter London to go to work, shop or pick up the kids from school. How will key workers get to London to support the health service, the police or other emergency workers there? Many of those key workers own cars that will be charged if they enter London, yet they keep vital services in London going. The supermarket ASDA has contacted me because it is concerned about the impact that the extension would have on its depot workers. It estimates that over half of those workers have vehicles that would be subject to the charge.

I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they need to bob to catch my eye—but that reminder seems slightly superfluous.

I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution —I am of course the Member of Parliament for Swansea West, but I was formerly the leader of Croydon Council and an MP for Croydon—to support the ultra low emission zone. I am horrified to see so many outer London Conservatives gambling with people’s lives for their own political survival. We are 70 years on from the great London smog, yet 4,000 people in London are dying prematurely, 11 every day, from air pollution. As leader of Croydon Council, I introduced the Tramlink, 26 km of light rail. When I was in Croydon, I had to regularly take my oldest daughter to Mayday Hospital with asthma attacks because of air pollution. Now, in Swansea, my children have not had to go to hospital.

Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the report produced by Jacobs entitled “ULEZ Scheme Integrated Impact Assessment”? If he is, how does he square his comments about Conservative Members from outer London not caring about people dying of air pollution with statements in that report such as this?

“The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO₂) to negligible (PM_2.5) beneficial impact on exposure to air pollution and achieving WHO Interim Targets across Greater London.”

I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because the expectation is that the expansion of the ULEZ will reduce PM_2.5 in outer London by 16%. He should know, but I am sure he does not, that studies at Harvard University and a Max Planck Institute found that covid deaths increased by between 8% and 12% when there was a marginal increase in air pollution from PM_2.5—an increase much less significant than the fall that I mentioned. That is particularly relevant to poorer, more polluted areas and more diverse communities. We are talking here about life and death.

We know from studies done that there will be a massive reduction in PM_2.5 and Nox as a result of the expansion. Indeed, there will be a major contribution towards mitigating climate change. The scheme already reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 12,300 tonnes; an expanded one will reduce it by 27,000 tonnes. We will be saving lives and saving the planet. The truth is that if we do not act, we will end up with 550,000 more people unnecessarily getting pollution-related diseases in the next 30 years, at an estimated cost of £10.4 billion. We should move forward on this. People who are neutral, such as the chief medical officer Chris Whitty, who has just released a report on air pollution, very much commend what Sadiq Khan is doing to save lives, as does the United Nations.

As a result of the ULEZ, there are 21,000 fewer vehicles in inner London and 67,000 fewer non-compliant ones—the latter figure is three times the former—so there are fewer vehicles overall. The scheme affects only 15% of vehicles—the most polluting—and £110 million has been set aside for scrappage schemes to enable conversion. The other thing to bear in mind is that the Government a year ago passed the Environment Act 2021. I wanted them to use COP26 to enforce World Health Organisation air quality standards, but instead, a year on, the Government are saying, “Why do we not try to get PM_2.5 at 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040?”, as opposed to 2030, which was the previous deadline. The limit prescribed by the World Health Organisation is 5 micrograms, which Europe will achieve by 2030. We could achieve that here—this is a condition of doing so—with ultra low emission zones. Instead, the Conservative position is, “No, we will not bother with that. We will play politics with this, and continue to have 3,600 children every year in London going into hospital with asthma”, as my daughter did. That is unnecessary—and despicable, because it is avoidable.

The hon. Gentleman talks about playing politics, but it is the Mayor who has gone against his consultation. He says that Londoners are in favour of the ULEZ because they talk about air quality. Every Londoner would be concerned about air quality, but this is about the consultation that he refused to accept. The hon. Gentleman talked about trams in Croydon. It would be far better to pay for the tram extension in Sutton; that would be cheaper than what the Mayor is doing, and it would improve air quality by ensuring that people made fewer car journeys—and he would be taking residents with him.

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports trams. I very much agree that we should move forward with trams across London and elsewhere. As an aside, the tram system cost us £200 million at the time. It was a public-private scheme with £100 million of private money and £100 million of public. We could get 1,000 of those schemes and integrated transport across Britain for the cost of HS2, but that is controversial and off the point.

We should certainly take people with us; the YouGov poll shows that people support the extension of the ULEZ by a ratio of 2:1. It is very easy to go round knocking on people’s doors and saying, “Do you agree with Sadiq Khan’s attempt to tax you more in this despicable way?”, but if we do a neutral, objective study through YouGov, we find that people support it by 2:1.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?