Sadiq Khan’s Office Accused of Suppressing Scientific Research on Ulez Pollution Impact

Sadiq Khan’s Office Accused of Suppressing Scientific Research on Ulez Pollution Impact

Sadiq Khan’s office is facing allegations of attempting to stifle the publication of scientific research that cast doubts on the effectiveness of his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy.

The controversy arises as protesters took to the streets to oppose the expansion of the Ulez scheme, causing traffic disruptions.

Email Exchange Raises Concerns:

An exchange of emails between Shirley Rodrigues, the deputy for environment and energy under London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and Professor Frank Kelly, director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, has come to light.

The research group has received substantial funding from the London Mayor’s office since 2021.

In these emails, Rodrigues expressed disappointment over the publication of a study conducted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Imperial College.

The study indicated that the Ulez policy resulted in less than a three percent reduction in nitrogen dioxide levels and had a minimal impact on ozone and particulate matter pollution.

The research findings contradicted the narrative promoted by the Mayor’s office.

Efforts to Shape the Narrative:

Rodrigues and Prof. Kelly reportedly collaborated on a co-written statement that contradicted the research findings and positioned the Ulez policy as a driver of significant air pollution reduction.

This move appears to have been motivated by a desire to counter the negative implications of the research and maintain the effectiveness of the Ulez policy in the public eye.

Critics and Alternative Perspectives:

As the controversy unfolds, critics are highlighting concerns about the economic implications of Ulez expansion, particularly for lower-income families.

Councillor Paul Osborn, leader of Harrow Council, expressed skepticism about the policy’s impact on air pollution and emphasized its potential financial burden on vulnerable motorists.

Councillor Baroness O’Neill of Bexley also criticized the data as flawed and suggested that the Ulez expansion was driven more by revenue generation than genuine air quality improvement.

Defensive Response and Policy Explanation:

A spokesperson for Sadiq Khan defended the Ulez policy, citing the common occurrence of differing opinions among academic experts.

The spokesperson argued that the analysis from Imperial College’s engineering department offered only a partial view, as it did not consider the long-term effects of the Ulez scheme beyond its immediate launch phase.

Protests and Public Concerns:

The controversy coincided with protesters taking to the streets to demonstrate against the Ulez expansion.

Traffic disruptions occurred as activists gathered to oppose the extension of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone across the entire city of London.

The expansion entails a daily fee of £12.50 for drivers in outer London whose vehicles do not meet emissions standards.

Alternative Solutions and Economic Impact:

Amid the discussions, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urged Sadiq Khan to reconsider the Ulez expansion, and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer suggested exploring alternative approaches to address air pollution.

Professor Jim Skea, head of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emphasized the need to consider the economic effects of policies on different segments of society, particularly those with lower incomes.

He highlighted the potential challenges faced by economically disadvantaged individuals in transitioning to electric vehicles.


The controversy surrounding the suppression of scientific research on the Ulez policy’s pollution impact underscores the complex interplay between policy, research, and public perception.

As London continues to grapple with air quality challenges, the debate over Ulez’s effectiveness and its implications for various segments of society remains a topic of concern and discussion.