ULEZ and The Impact on Charities.

Whilst the goal of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone or ULEZ zone was to reduce the level of harmful toxic air within a given area. There has been an unmistaken impact of ULEZ on families financially as well as charities which serve their communities. Now whilst clean air is something that we all want for our families, there are still times where the car is crucial whether it be for key works serving the community.

How Charities Support the Community:

Although the public transport system in London is highly effective it is still unable to meet all the needs of its community and is now spilling over into adverse effects on charities. Providing aid for the most vulnerable in society is something that should be a top priority for any local authority and ensuring that works can be taken with the fewest barriers is essential. Often due to the flexibility and innovation of charities and businesses many in our communities have these needs met not just by the public sector but by the private sector.

The Impact of ULEZ

This is where the ULEZ zone particularly impacts the vulnerable, now although some businesses in London and TFL will be able to update their vehicles to reflect the new policies and therefore reduce their emissions charities and small businesses will not be able to do this. This will effectively add greater costs to these organisations. Organisations like Dogs on the Street who are a small charity which serve the homeless residents of London and their pets are one such organisation offering tailored services that these citizens otherwise would not be able to afford. The charity has bespoke services and have specialist equipment on their vehicles to offer these services to the communities and modernising these vehicles will add significant costs to their operation. To adapt to this change that means the donation and fundraising efforts are going towards paying the ULEZ fees rather than into providing crucial support for the residents and their pets.

Scrappage Program Flaws

So, what about the scrappage scheme now whilst the scrappage program offered grant funding for charities or businesses in order to conform with the new charges before they came in the problem lies with purpose refitted vehicles. Specifically having mobile grooming, veterinary and general care vehicles have additional expenses and whilst the grant would go some way to meet these costs it would barely cover the cost of acquisition of a vehicle, and this would often be of an older used model where the battery will also have shown some wearing unlike traditional fuel vehicles which have a longer service life. This scheme has also been closed to new applicants which limits charities making claims for grant funding where the two-year window may have often not allowed the organisation to raise the necessary funds to replace the fleet of specialist vehicles. This two-year window also came at a time when many of the organisations were working flat out to deal with added pressures of Covid-19.

Actions that can be Taken

Now, myself and other activists are calling on the Mayor of London to look again at how his ULEZ zones are still impacting some of the most vulnerable in his community by increasing the financial burden on charities. That is why we are collectively calling on him to review his ULEZ policy for charities who may have been unable to refit or scrap vehicles under the previous scheme. Reopen the scheme to allow for further funding to support specialist sourcing of new efficient vehicles or to provide exemptions. The support for Dogs On The Street from Neil Garratt and Shaun Bailey has been hugely refreshing to see London Assembly members standing up for this charity and others.

Further Reading

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/scrappage-schemes?cid=scrappage-scheme

https://dogsonthestreets.org/london/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/05/londons-ultra-low-emission-zone-good-or-bad-idea

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/ulez-checker-zone-map-charge-2021-b1944620.html

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/mayors-ultra-low-emission-zone-london

Remember contact your London Assembly members and add pressure onto the Mayor.

https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly

Protest are they for Change or just Unnecessary Disruption:

The protests:

In the news we have seen an increase in protestors taking direct action on the M25 with the aim to disrupt drivers to garner media attention to influence change. With the aim to improve insulation of Britains instead of warming hearts the disruption caused has left protestors out in the cold. 

Now I am not against protest or the power of the individual as many of our key moments have come from a small number but many methods are flawed. The 3.5% rule as an example is a principle that so long as 3.5% of the population agree with an action engaging this can influence government decisions. Now to put this into a context the insulate britain protests are headed by a small minority numbering at most a hundred from evidence. Extinction rebellion was in the 1000s and in Leicester BLM had 4000 individuals. 

Now 3.5% of UKs population is 2391190 so many of these protests are a long way off of the influential minority. 

So how can you have an impact?

You must take the population with you or offer a sensible alternative. Many individuals of these groups often scoff when people question their actions or intentions telling people to do their own research but this does nothing but forces people away from their cause. Campaigners that share research provide resources and are able to work with other groups are often more anecdotally more successful with their campaigns. Looking at campaigns such as Anatonias Law for care home reform, the moves made my the Pet Theft Reform team, Finns law, Tuks Law as well as larger organisations to influence changes. These campaigns however have benefited from the benefit of research they then add in the emotional component which brings people with them. 

Take some of Insulate Britains own points:

Their targets of getting central government to change insulation when planning is a district or unitary council issue. A points they are raising is about new homes being built to a standard, yet they do not focus on shoddy developers with documented evidence of cut corners on their builds. They have no strategy to inform house buyers of their rights so they can challenge developers or to work with communities to block inadequate development taking place. This however is also difficult to achieve when they have no firm targets to influence house building targets. So why are they not targeting councils to adopt a higher standard of housing or working with HORNET to influence changes to house building’s standards tackling property developers as they did with leaseholds and as they are still working on with Fleecehold properties.

Issues such as fleecehold properties are an issue that planners (civil servants) do not want to tackle pressure on elected officials in the right way would help to lobby for change. Or better yet get involved to influence the change on the doorstep. The second point they are campaigning for is for government to pay for insulation of old homes to be levelled up to a standard, but without a clear standard this will always be difficult. The green grant scheme had this option but wasn’t well adopted and if the government bring it back in as an incentive businesses or suppliers up the cost or it becomes another tax burden. 

The other reason why many have little sympathy for this particular cause however is strategies are already in place to tackle it. There are green grants households can apply for on existing dwellings particularly for the less well off in society. However rather than promote this change and encourage people to take up the scheme by going to the following link: Simple Energy Advice check your eligibility and see if you can get help.

https://carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/cchr/files/CCDP_005.pdf

https://www.ncvo.org.uk/policy-and-research/campaigning-policy

https://rogers-norton.co.uk/homeowners-given-15-years-bring-legal-action-developers-shoddy-workmanship/

https://www.gov.uk/improve-energy-efficiency

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/

Saving Geronimo

In Summary:

Geronimo was bought by his owner from a bTB negative farm and was imported to the UK by his Owner Helen. Geronimo was tested on a trial testing program by DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) and the BAS (British Alpaca Society). There are multiple elements taking place in this case as it is has received national interest, the personal bond between Geronimo and his owner as well as the validity of the trial.

The Trial of the Enferplex Test:

The problem with the trial. Now the test in itself may have a place in the sector to benefit cattle and alpacas. The issue is that there has been an issue with the test as part of the trial whilst they included various outcomes to rule out particular errors the problem, occurs with the circumstances of Geronimo. Even though he has been isolated and after coming from a TB free county the test conducted is showing a positive result but we should all be aware that this test is only a trial to see if it detects bTB in camelids as it does in cattle as well as the accuracy. The concern would be as with some of the errors currently found with TB testing post mortem is the only conclusive test identifying TB lesions but if Geronimo is healthy this is a senseless waste of life. This also poses a problem for the government and DEFRA as it would be a PR disaster. Now Geronimo has been vaccinated according to his owner which the tests used in the trial Enferplex would not be able to distinguish from him having the disease. This is where the problem lies for a trial the animal should not have been selected to begin with as there is nothing in the protocols to account for this. Now the backup of this type of test is to utilise the much-contested validity of the skin test which is also primarily used in the cattle which in itself has had its sensitivity questioned and found in camelids the accuracy is less than 20%.

Call for the Actiphage Test:

Now a testing method that does not utilise a method for detecting present antibodies and instead identified the presence of the disease itself is a far more sensible solution. The Actiphage test effectively highlights to the tester if the disease is present by giving a clear DNA signature under testing conditions from a blood sample taken from the subject. This would remove the risk that the animal simply has antibodies due to an immune response that has been supported by a vaccine. If the test proves that there is no TB present then what we effectively have is a case for a test that can be used to identify the status of an animal after the introduction of a vaccine. Then if animals test positive under this test they may be vaccinated but could also be reactors as they have the disease present and would effectively be suffering from the disease. This would offer an option to incorporate testing into a vaccine regime for both cattle and camelids as well as a lifeline for Geronimo.

In Conclusion:

The Actiphage test provides a new tool to potentially safeguard vaccinated animals like Geronimo as we move closer to vaccine trials this is invaluable. Whilst also protecting other stock animals as we measure the effectiveness of the test and validity. Geronimo is potentially paving the way to increase the calibre of the testing method applied in the UK and also offer crucial protection from euthanasia which many including myself feel is morally wrong and scientifically dubious without robust testing.

Sources and Further Reading:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9879245/Standoff-Geronimo-continues-alpacas-owner-demands-appropriate-bovine-TB-testing.html

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/health-welfare/livestock-diseases/bovine-tb/farmers-and-vets-hope-alpaca-case-raises-bovine-tb-awareness

https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-in-non-bovine-animals/camelids/

http://apha.defra.gov.uk/external-operations-admin/library/documents/tuberculosis/TN191.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-58158054

https://1gov.uk/petition-to-save-condemned-alpaca-geronimo-secures-almost-80000-signatures/

https://www.bas-uk.com/british-alpaca-society-calls-for-urgent-talks-with-defra-amidst-fears-for-the-future-of-voluntary-btb-testing-in-the-uk/

https://tbhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Factsheet_gamma_test_TB_hub.pdf

https://tbhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Phage_factsheet_13.02.2020_TB_hub.pdf

Aus-UK Trade Deal

At a Glance:

On the 17th of June 2021, Australia and the UK signed a historic trade deal. Now both nations are seeking an ambitious free trade agreement (FTA). Now whilst the UK is mainly looking at the FTA as the first step in entering the pacific market, Australia is looking at boosting its ties with the UK consumer market. Whilst the UK will benefit from exports of Whiskey, Cheeses and Cars. Australia benefits from an increase in Agricultural access and industrial products. For countries with broadly similar systems and ways of working, easing restrictions on UK Australian working visas is also a big pull.

The Good:

With over 1.25 million ex-pats living in Australia, a core winner here is the young job seekers, the gap year adventures, and the entrepreneurs. Greater access to both countries education systems, markets and cultures allows for knowledge sharing, growth of existing companies or the formation of new businesses as both countries seek to explore the wealth of development in the tertiary and quaternary sectors. A core focus is how these two island nations can establish conduits of data flow with established protections maintained for both consumers. This presents opportunities for the UK and Australian firms to challenge the might of Silicon Valley. With the greater access, this would provide for a greater prospect for both nations to share both the skills of their respective workforces and provide an opportunity for businesses to flourish. With the UK and Australia already sharing cultural heritage, a free trade agreement would remove red tape to provide essential growth in these emerging sectors. 

The Bad: 

Whereas the deal is primarily heralded as an outstanding achievement and part of Britain reentering the global fray, we also need to recognise its limitations. Now the UK is both known for an exceptional standard of food quality and animal welfare; however, the provision for our farmers is far less robust than other countries. The Australian trade deal for all its benefits for opening up both emerging sectors and new avenues for trade also sees Australia benefit from a new market to sell its livestock and arable produce to now this in itself is not a problem until we address the broader issues. The UK is legislating for greater protection for animals already providing protection in slaughterhouses with CCTV, actively working towards reducing life transport and generally improving welfare standards of stock. The issues from the fact that many in the sector myself included seeing cheap imports as a potential loss leader that UK farmers cannot compete against due to quality or regulatory pressures.  Now, this could be remedied by further intervention from the government to protect the British agriculture trade through additional reinforcement of subsidies which would continue to enable farmers security of revenue so that they can steward the environment. We also have to reflect on the recent pandemic where without these key workers within this sector, UK food prices would have soared, but subsidy should not be the only tool. Subsidy should be a support mechanism for farmers to innovate and explore further opportunities, not as the critical area to ensure their survival which is where in the future we are likely going to need more robust packaging from trends in carbon footprints and welfare standards to the origin of products.

The Ugly:

As with many areas of new policy areas, we are likely to see far further detail in weeks and months to come, and the benefit of this detail may undoubtedly outweigh any cons. However, areas that are already becoming abundantly clear are that any trade deal needs to add value to our stores and the public without costing our domestic sectors. We must recognise that this deal will essentially become the benchmark for future agreements with other countries such as New Zealand and the United States, and the standards we employ need to ensure we can maintain our quality. This is where we need to think about what governments and sectors can do to ensure the British made standard is and Union Jack products are promoted as other countries will be focusing on promoting their products and not seeing our own produce increasingly priced out of the market. Whereas some would certainly and often rightly articulate that the market would be the best moderator to ensure that successful products or produce survive, we need to recognise holistic benefits of what we are trying to achieve and whilst tariff provisions are a solution, they are not a silver bullet. We need to think of what can be done to ensure that we are giving the right information with a greater abundance of produce. Making sure products are more accurately labelled and those items have information consumers care about as we already see levels of information vary based on the intensity of farming or sustainability of materials we need to reflect this on the packaging in the stores. Place of origin is also crucial and must be clear as we are already aware larger producers such as New Zealand Dairy could potentially use the deal to enter the UK milk market and price pinched farmers further out. 

To conclude:

The free trade deal in itself overs various opportunities for a plethora of sectors to benefit from further collaboration with a country we share so much with; however, we need to recognise that the deal must benefit the UK holistically and not sole sectors. Agreements need to ensure various sectors can benefit from these new agreements offering avenues to enrich our great nation and not solely focus on metropolitan sectors to see growth for our country and the success of domestic programs. Part of the levelling up agenda needs to recognise the key industries around our nation and areas where we can grow, not token offers or caveats.