Sadiq Khan's deputy and a scientist the mayor's workplace helps to fund have been accused of working collectively in an try to criticise analysis that questioned the effectiveness of London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

Emails obtained by the Conservative Party below the Freedom of Information Act confirmed Professor Frank Kelly of Imperial College London and deputy mayor for the surroundings, Shirley Rodrigues, apparently working collectively to "fight back" towards analysis printed and publicised by the identical college.

The ULEZ and its expansions have gotten key political dividing strains between the Conservatives and Labour, and have been a part of the rationale the Tories held on to Boris Johnson's former seat in west London in a by-election earlier this yr.

Prof Kelly is an skilled on public well being coverage and air high quality.

He can also be the director of the Environmental Research Group (ERG), a physique which supplies air high quality info and analysis within the UK, which has acquired a whole bunch of hundreds of kilos from the mayor's workplace, amongst different sources.

According to the Greater London Authority, £757,000 over 4 years was the "vast majority" of the cash supplied - and was used for the Breathe London challenge, which includes putting in air high quality displays throughout the capital.

The Conservatives have accused Prof Kelly and Mr Khan's workplace of getting "an alarmingly cosy relationship".

Their fundamental accusation stems from the response by Prof Kelly and Ms Rodrigues to a examine printed by Imperial in 2021, which examined the impression of the ULEZ over a interval of 12 weeks.

Emails present the mayor's workplace - together with Ms Rodrigues - contacted Prof Kelly within the wake of this examine being printed and reported on to "challenge some of the misunderstandings" in it.

The mayor's workplace apparently took difficulty with the restricted time frame over which the examine was performed.

Prof Kelly instructed the Labour mayor's crew his college "is not keen for us to put a direct contradiction" out within the media - however he was completely happy to "fight back", in response to the emails.

The mayor's workplace additionally provided to place Prof Kelly in contact with senior Labour determine David Lammy for a "friendly" interview on the London MP's radio present.

'Khan conspired to silence analysis'

Peter Fortune, a Conservative member of the Greater London Assembly, mentioned: "Science relies on open, transparent debate.

"It is unacceptable that Sadiq Khan and his deputy conspired to silence official analysis as a result of it might harm the mayor's repute and credibility.

"Sadiq Khan has claimed he is just following the science, yet he has been using scientific advisors to protect his own interests.

"The mayor's personal impartial impression evaluation exhibits the ULEZ enlargement can have a negligible impact on air high quality, whereas hitting the poorest Londoners hardest.

"That is why we need to tackle air pollution where it is, instead of taxing where it isn't."

Read extra:Where the expanded ULEZ will cowlProtesters towards zone enlargement cease London site visitorsKhan pleads with councils as cameras vandalisedULEZ enlargement authorized, High Court guidelines

'Normal and correct' to work with consultants

A spokesperson for the mayor mentioned: "It is right - and standard practice across government - that we commission experts to carry out research to inform the work we do.

"Frank Kelly and the Environmental Research Group at Imperial are a number of the world-leading tutorial establishments air high quality.

"It is normal and proper to work with these experts to ensure our policies are as effective as possible at dealing with issues such as the high number of deaths - up to 4,000 a year - linked to toxic air in London every year."

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

The assertion added: "The ULEZ analysis from the engineering department at Imperial only paints a partial picture, not accounting for the full lifetime impact of the scheme, and only focusing on its immediate impact around its launch.

"It is commonplace for educational consultants to disagree with how different tutorial research are interpreted, as was the case right here."

Content Source: information.sky.com