A reply from "my" MP on ULEZ

Last week, I received a reply from Jeremy Hunt MP to an e-mail I sent him on 11^th September 2023 regarding ULEZ expansion. I thought it would be worth re-publishing both his reply and my recent response.

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your email regarding the ULEZ expansion and I apologise for the immense delay in my reply. I would just note that due to transport within London being devolved to the Mayor of London, he is not legally required to consult either central or local government before implementing the scheme. But the government is clear that the Mayor needs to put TFL on a financially sustainable footing and disagrees with the expansion of ULEZ. I do also welcome that the government prevented the mayor from using government money to fund the expansion.

I do understand your comments on the democracy surrounding ULEZ and the negative impact of the expansion on those who travel into London by car. However, regarding tradespeople, it may be useful to know that self-employed tradespeople driving vehicles that do not comply with ULEZ may be able to recoup the money spent on the ULEZ charge via their tax returns. This is only if the journey that incurred the charge relates to the sole purpose of their trade.

Regarding cameras, I do understand your concerns but I hope it is of at least some comfort that TFL has confirmed that it does not use live facial recognition technology nor intends to deploy it for purposes of enforcing ULEZ. I hope it will also be useful to know that if there were ever any proposed extensions to a system which involved images or information is collected, this will be subject to consultation before the decision is taken. I hope this has been useful and if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Finally, if you do not already receive it, would it be helpful for you to receive my weekly update of events in Westminster and locally? You can sign up here and can unsubscribe at any time. 

Thank you again for writing to me.

Best wishes,

Jeremy

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail of 11^th September. Given that the government disapproved of the ULEZ expansion, I am still uncertain as to why Mark Harper MP chose not to overrule it on the grounds that it went against the government’s priorities, as I understand he had the right to do.

With regard to tradespeople being able to recoup the ULEZ charge, I am well aware of the “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” test, and if it applies here, this is OK so far as it goes. But it does nothing for people whose businesses are impacted because their customers can no longer get cost-effectively to and from them. Nor does it do anything for employees whose place of work is now inside the zone. The case of the West Lodge Park hotel comes to mind as an example of both these.

As to cameras, I would say that in this context the use of facial recognition technology is all but a red herring. Since most drivers drive their own cars, automatic number plate recognition is already enough to trace individuals as they move around. Blanket ANPR without a reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing, I consider, is in itself a violation of the rights of privacy and freedom of movement.

As to consultations, after previous occasions such as the bringing forward of the deadline for banning new petrol and diesel cars – where all submissions which went against the party line were completely ignored – and the “consultation” on the ULEZ expansion itself, which went ahead despite a large majority being opposed to it, I am afraid that I now find the words “government consultation” to be something of a sick joke. I do not think either your party, or any of the other mainstream parties, have any real understanding of how far you have all lost the trust and the respect of the people you are supposed to be serving.

All this said, I do appreciate the time you have taken to reply to me on this, and I look forward in particular to your upcoming reply to the e-mail I sent you near the end of November regarding cost-benefit analysis for “Net Zero.”

Yours sincerely,

Neil Lock