As London braces for a pivotal mayoral contest, one of the capital’s most contentious policies is back in the spotlight: the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez). Laila Cunningham, Reform UK’s candidate for London mayor, has vowed to scrap the scheme entirely if elected, positioning herself in direct opposition to Sadiq Khan’s flagship air-quality measure. In a city grappling with both polluted air and a cost-of-living crisis, Cunningham’s pledge-made in a recent interview with ITV News-sets up a sharp political and ideological clash over how best to balance environmental goals with the financial pressures facing drivers, businesses and households. This article examines Cunningham’s stance,the arguments surrounding Ulez,and what her proposal could mean for London’s future.
Laila Cunningham’s pledge to scrap Ulez What the Reform candidate is really proposing for London
For motorists weary of camera flashes and daily charges, Laila Cunningham’s promise sounds disarmingly simple: she would “scrap Ulez on day one.” But the fine print of her pitch reveals something more complex than a single-issue revolt. Framed as a reset of London’s approach to air quality and mobility, her plan aims to roll back what she calls “punitive taxation by stealth” while replacing it with a different set of levers. Instead of the Ultra Low Emission Zone, Cunningham is talking up a package that mixes deregulation with targeted incentives, designed to appeal to drivers, small businesses and outer-borough commuters who feel the policy has been designed at their expense rather than in partnership with them.
- Immediate end to Ulez charges across all zones
- Amnesty on historic fines linked to the scheme
- Time-limited grants for tradespeople and low-income drivers to upgrade vehicles
- New pollution targets focused on hotspots rather than citywide blanket rules
| Current Ulez | Cunningham’s Proposal |
|---|---|
| Daily charge for non-compliant cars | No daily charge, voluntary upgrade support |
| Revenue folded into TfL budget | Funding via City Hall savings and central grants |
| Automatic camera enforcement | Fewer cameras, targeted roadside checks |
| Citywide blanket standards | Localised measures in worst-polluted areas |
What Cunningham is really offering is a political and financial rebalancing: a intentional shift of costs away from drivers and towards City Hall and Whitehall, coupled with a bet that pollution can be tackled through technology and incentives rather than fines. Critics warn this is a high‑risk experiment that could slow progress on clean air, while supporters hail it as a lifeline for trades, carers and low-paid workers who rely on older vehicles. The choice for Londoners is not merely between keeping or scrapping a scheme, but between two competing visions of how the capital should pay for cleaner air, who shoulders that burden, and how quickly change should come.
How ending Ulez could impact air quality congestion and public health across the capital
Removing the charge on the most polluting vehicles would almost certainly bring immediate relief to some drivers’ wallets,but experts warn it could also invite a surge in older diesel cars and vans back onto London’s streets. That risks reversing hard‑won reductions in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), pollutants strongly linked to asthma attacks, heart disease and premature deaths. Public health studies have already shown children in the capital developing stunted lung capacity from prolonged exposure to dirty air; without a deterrent like this, campaigners fear the capital could slip back towards the levels seen before low‑emission controls were expanded. The impact would not be felt evenly: communities along main roads, many of them lower‑income and already living with poor housing and fewer green spaces, would likely bear the brunt once again.
Beyond pollution, traffic patterns could shift noticeably if driving the highest‑emitting vehicles becomes cheaper and easier than investing in cleaner alternatives. More cars and vans would mean heavier congestion, slower bus journeys and a potential setback for cycling and walking schemes designed to cut emissions and improve fitness. Public health specialists point to a double hit: residents inhaling more exhaust fumes while also being nudged towards more sedentary routines.Key concerns being raised by transport and health analysts include:
- Rising roadside emissions on key commuter and freight corridors.
- Increased pressure on the NHS from respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.
- Worsening inequality for boroughs already classed as pollution “hotspots”.
- Reduced effectiveness of past investment in cleaner buses and active travel.
| Area | With Ulez | Without Ulez |
|---|---|---|
| Roadside NO₂ | Gradual decline | Risk of rebound |
| Traffic levels | Moderated by charges | More older vehicles |
| Public health | Fewer pollution‑linked cases | Higher long‑term burden |
| Inequality | Some levelling | Pressure on poorest areas |
The financial reality of reversing Ulez Costs legal hurdles and who would pay
Unpicking a citywide scheme like Ulez is not as simple as flicking a political switch; it is a tangle of contracts, statutory guidance and Treasury expectations.TfL has entered into long-term agreements for camera infrastructure, data processing and enforcement services, many of which include penalty clauses for early termination. Any incoming mayor pledging to dismantle the system would face questions over who shoulders these liabilities: City Hall, central government, or ultimately Londoners through higher fares and council tax. Lawyers also warn that revoking or rewriting existing road user rules could trigger judicial reviews, especially if changes are rushed or seen as undermining air quality duties enshrined in UK and London regulations.
Even if the political will exists, the accounting reality is stark. Ulez generates both revenue and savings in health and congestion costs, and tearing it up would leave a hole somewhere in the balance sheet. That raises a series of uncomfortable choices:
- Raise choice funds – higher public transport fares or council tax
- Cut services – fewer buses, delayed upgrades, reduced maintenance
- Seek central government support – risking a stand-off with the Treasury
- Shift costs to drivers – via new or rebranded charges elsewhere
| Option | Main Payer | Political Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Absorb legal and exit fees | London taxpayers | High |
| Ask for Treasury bailout | National taxpayers | Medium-High |
| Cut TfL spending | Public transport users | Medium |
| Phase-out rather of scrap | Shared over time | Lower, but slower impact |
Beyond Ulez Cunningham’s wider transport and environmental agenda for London voters
While the pledge to abolish the Ultra Low Emission Zone grabs the headlines, Cunningham is signalling a broader rethink of how Londoners move around-and who pays for it. Her campaign has floated a package of measures aimed at reshaping priorities away from punitive charges and towards investment and choice. Proposals under discussion include:
- Freezing or cutting public transport fares to offset the cost-of-living squeeze on commuters.
- Fast‑tracking upgrades to key Underground and rail bottlenecks to improve reliability in outer boroughs.
- Expanding park‑and‑ride hubs on the capital’s fringes to reduce congestion in central zones without new levies.
- Rebalancing road space by reviewing low‑traffic neighbourhoods and controversial cycle schemes on a case‑by‑case basis.
- Targeted incentives for cleaner vehicles focused on vans, taxis and small businesses rather than blanket schemes.
| Priority Area | Current Approach | Cunningham’s Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Air Quality | Widespread charging zones | Local hotspots, tech‑led monitoring |
| Commuter Costs | Above‑inflation fare pressures | Fare restraint and targeted relief |
| Road Policy | Deterrence for drivers | “User choice” with fewer penalties |
On the surroundings, she positions herself as an advocate of what her team calls “pragmatic green politics”: less focus on symbolism, more on measurable gains. That could mean redirecting funds from enforcement into projects such as:
- Expanding urban tree cover along main traffic corridors to cut pollution and heat.
- Retrofitting public buildings with better insulation and low‑carbon heating to trim emissions and energy bills.
- Backing small‑scale renewable projects on estates, schools and community centres, instead of high‑profile megaprojects.
- Supporting cleaner logistics through freight consolidation centres and night‑time delivery incentives.
Supporters argue this mix offers a more balanced deal to outer‑London motorists while still committing to cleaner air; critics counter that dismantling existing schemes risks slowing progress.The electoral test will be whether voters see her program as a reset of priorities-or a gamble with London’s environmental trajectory.
Wrapping Up
As the mayoral race intensifies, Cunningham’s pledge to scrap Ulez crystallises one of the sharpest divides in London politics: how to balance cleaner air with the cost of living.
Her candidacy will test whether frustration over charges and restrictions outweighs concern about pollution and public health, and whether Londoners see Reform’s challenge as a protest vote or a credible bid for City Hall.
With polling day approaching, the debate over Ulez – once a technical policy tool – has become a litmus test of competing visions for the capital’s future: who pays, who benefits and who gets to decide what kind of city London should be.
