ULEZ expansion political analysis.

The London mayor’s plan to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) into Greater London has felt increasingly contradictory to Labour’s defining policy to represent the urban working class. It appeared that the mayor had fulfilled his democratic duty when he issued a public consultation between May and July of 2022, but did it actually demonstrate ULEZ has a mandate?

The Gunning Principles set out the Law of Consultation. It is only legitimate when: proposals are still at a formative stage, there is sufficient information to give “intelligent consideration”, there is adequate time for consideration and response, and “conscientious consideration” is given to consultation responses before a decision.

So, did Sadiq Khan achieve “effective consultation” or has he put his political integrity in doubt?

The House of Commons Debate Pack on ULEZ from the 19^th of December revealed that the ten-week consultation received 57,937 responses, of which 342 were from stakeholders and 11,868 were from organisations.

Interestingly enough, 59% of the respondents said that the scheme should not be implemented, while on the other hand, only 21% agreed that it was the right date, with the remaining 20% disputing the time frame.

Damning evidence published by City Hall Conservatives on 17 January, 2023, exposes the scandal through 200 pages of internal correspondence and documents between the mayor’s senior advisors and Transport for London (TfL) directors during the final weeks of the consultation.

The report reveals that key political figures within the mayor’s Office were attending weekly briefings with TfL to get live updates on the results of the consultation.

Neil Garratt, a Conservative London Assembly Member for Croydon and Sutton, said: “There was clearly a concern that the results coming in were not what the mayor wanted or expected.”

In mid-July, the mayor’s Office authorised a £165,000 marketing campaign to push the consultation to younger people. Mr Khan argued that they were noticing groups that were underrepresented in the responses and wanted to make sure this was addressed.

Mr Garratt said: “There were two other groups that were underrepresented: one was women, and the other was BAME Londoners.” The final report found that 85% of respondents were from a white ethnic background, which meant only 15% were BAME.

To make matters worse, it appears responses from campaign groups that opposed ULEZ, such as “fairfueluk”, were excluded. Yet, campaign responses from pro-ULEZ groups like “wearepossible” were included.

All of this enabled Sadiq Khan to lower the level of opposition from 62% to 59% in the final report.

And, given that the mayor did not include London-wide ULEZ in his manifesto, it has been questioned whether the scheme has a mandate.

“The behaviour that we can evidence is consistent with an attempt to sell it to the public rather than just a completely neutral attempt to find out what people think, and act accordingly,” he said.

The Greater London Authority Act does state in Section 143 that the government can force a change to the mayor’s transport strategy if it’s “inconsistent with national policies relating to transport”. As the supreme legal authority in the UK, Parliament’s power is unlimited by the Constitution.

But Mr Garratt explained: “I am a bit reluctant to see central government come in and squash things.”

Conservative Assembly Members have launched nine Freedom of Information Act requests, along with an official investigation into Sadiq Khan. Five London Borough Councils have put forward a Judicial Review to challenge the expansion, which if successful will allow the courts to enact the Rule of Law and ensure the mayor does not act beyond his “legitimate powers” with the ULEZ scheme.