← Back to House of Commons Debates
The ULEZ Expansion (Consequential Provisions) Bill - Clause 1
22 March 2024
Lead MP
Gareth Johnson
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 30
At a Glance
Gareth Johnson raised concerns about the ulez expansion (consequential provisions) bill - clause 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Mr. Gareth Johnson proposes to overturn the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) scheme in London, arguing it is a form of taxation that disproportionately affects the poorest members of society and businesses outside London. He claims the scheme lacks proper consultation and mandate from voters, impacting areas beyond the Mayor's jurisdiction without their consent. He emphasises the financial burden on emergency workers commuting into London, who face £12.50 charges per day for non-compliant vehicles. Johnson also criticises the scrappage scheme as inadequate and expensive.
David Evennett
Con
Bexleyheath and Crayford
Mr. David Evennett supports Mr. Johnson's position, highlighting the unfairness of people living on opposite sides of a road paying different taxes due to the ULEZ expansion. He notes that many low-income workers cannot afford these charges.
Louie French
Con
Old Bexley and Sidcup
Ms. Louie French encourages her colleagues to back the Bill, suggesting it is a test of Labour Members' stance on supporting those affected by ULEZ expansion.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Ms. Kerry McCarthy argues that Bristol's Clean Air Zone was imposed due to legal requirements, contrasting this with Mr. Johnson’s argument about local autonomy and suggesting the ULEZ expansion serves a similar environmental purpose.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
Mr. Dean Russell agrees that Sadiq Khan greenwashed his plans for border tax by adding an environmental aspect, and he supports the Bill as a way to overturn ULEZ expansion.
Christchurch
Mr. Christopher Chope asks Mr. Johnson why the Government did not use its powers to ban ULEZ extension, indicating support for overturning it.
Ms. Theresa Villiers strongly supports the Bill, citing that local high street businesses in outer London are adversely affected by the loss of customers from outside the border due to ULEZ charges.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham and Chislehurst
Mr. Clive Efford argues that funds collected through ULEZ go towards London's services, questioning how constituents in outer areas can afford to drive into London when their roads are in poor condition.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
The Bill represents an attack on devolution, ignores urgent air quality issues, and uses a serious public health issue for party political point scoring. She supports the Mayor of London's statutory obligations to introduce measures to meet national air quality targets and emphasises that 19 out of every 20 cars in Greater London comply with the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Labour Members support Transport for London and the Mayor of London’s decision to expand the scrappage scheme to help those struggling due to austerity, highlighting the importance of devolution. She argues that the Bill is an attack on local autonomy and does not address health concerns.
David Evennett
Con
Bexleyheath and Crayford
He criticises the Labour Member for Nottingham South's lack of understanding about outer London issues, disputes claims that ULEZ reduces pollution effectively in inner London, and raises concerns over negative social and economic impacts on Bexley residents. He argues that local authorities received funding from the Government but points out the Mayor of London's responsibility for introducing ULEZ without proper consultation. David mentions high car ownership rates and low public transport usage in his borough.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham
Clarifies that he has received complaints about road conditions caused by Government funding cuts to local authorities, not specifically about ULEZ expansion.
Louie French
Con
Old Bexley and Sidcup
Points out that Royal Borough of Greenwich has received significant funding from the Government for road maintenance, addressing criticism by Labour MPs about lack of support.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Questions whether national legislation is necessary when London mayoral elections are approaching and suggests supporting scrappage schemes for residents affected by ULEZ expansion.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
The MP argues that ULEZ is a critical public health measure to address air pollution, which has significant impacts on children's and adults' respiratory health. She highlights the success of Bristol’s clean air zone, noting reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels by 9.7% overall and 26.9% outside hospitals. McCarthy emphasises the need for government action on EV infrastructure, affordability issues with cleaner vehicles, and supports local initiatives like liveable neighbourhoods and school street schemes.
Steve Tuckwell
Con
Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Mr. Tuckwell supports the Bill, arguing that it would rectify a 'blatant money grab' by the Mayor of London's expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He cites financial hardship and negative social consequences for hard-working families and businesses in outer London due to ULEZ expansion. The MP criticises the lack of democratic process involved, highlighting the absence of mention in the mayor’s manifesto and questioning the validity of the consultation process. He also raises concerns about unreliable public transport infrastructure which complicates the shift towards cleaner modes of transportation.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
She opposes the amendment due to its impact on devolution and public health. She provides detailed examples of how air pollution affects her constituents, including a case study involving a constituent with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She highlights the effectiveness of the ULEZ in reducing harmful emissions and supports the Mayor's scrappage scheme as an essential component for further progress.
Intervened to highlight concerns about the negative impact on low-income individuals who travel by non-compliant private vehicles in outer London, suggesting that these groups are disproportionately affected by the policy.
Hayes and Harlington
Intervened to remind of his involvement in establishing the Greater London Authority Act 1999, emphasising that consensus built around empowering the Mayor and GLA with appropriate powers. He also raised concerns about cancer incidence linked to air pollution, citing a Chicago airport study.
Louie French
Con
Old Bexley and Sidcup
Supports the Bill against Labour's stance, criticising the ULEZ expansion as a regressive tax hurting hard-working people in Greater London who face daily costs of £12.50 per day or £4,500 annually. Cites TfL data showing only one in three van drivers received support from the scrappage scheme despite needing it. Emphasises the negative impact on Bexley and surrounding areas due to the lack of meaningful evidence that proves ULEZ improves air quality.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
[INTERVENTION]: Supports Louie French’s position, stating the scheme taxes hard-working people unnecessarily and affects those who work in hospitals or contribute to London's economy. Mentions that bands are being priced out of performing gigs in London due to high costs.
Guy Opperman
Con
Hexham
[INTERVENTION]: Acknowledges Louie French's speech and agrees on the issue of a democratic deficit for those outside the mayoral zone, impacted by ULEZ without proper consultation or manifesto support. Highlights the need to navigate compliance with legislation while giving individuals say in the measure.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
I oppose this Bill because it seeks to undermine the powers of the Mayor of London, who has successfully introduced and expanded the ULEZ. The measure is crucial for public health, with data showing significant reductions in air pollution since its implementation. I also highlight that my constituents are disproportionately affected by poor air quality due to their housing conditions.
Hayes and Harlington
Intervened to suggest a comprehensive strategy for tackling air pollution and respiratory conditions would be more productive than debating this Bill. Emphasised that Fleur Anderson's legislation is foundational in addressing housing and health issues.
Agreed with Fleur Anderson that the Bill undermines devolved powers. Also noted that many vehicles are already ULEZ compliant, highlighting the practicality of the current measures.
Kim Leadbeater
Lab
Spen Valley
Supported Fleur Anderson's emphasis on active travel and clean air for public health benefits.
Louie French
Con
Old Bexley and Sidcup
Noted that Fleur Anderson herself would not be charged ULEZ fees, questioning the necessity of the measure. Raised concerns about a road tunnel project which could encourage more HGV traffic into central London.
Intervened to stress the long-term brain damage caused by air pollution, urging action for children's development and health.
Helen Hayes
Lab
Dulwich and West Norwood
Agreed with Fleur Anderson that the Mayor is constrained by national policies and funding decisions, limiting his ability to improve air quality.
Cited significant funding from the Department for Transport as evidence against claims of underfunding for London's transport initiatives.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
Dean Russell supports the Bill on behalf of Watford's hard-working people who commute to London for work, including those employed at local hospitals and entertainment sectors.
Pontypridd
Alex Davies-Jones opposes the Bill in its entirety. He criticises it as a poor attempt at political point-scoring and expresses concern over its implications for devolution within the United Kingdom.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.