Labour may defer EV manifesto pledge
And, say it quietly, a lot of green leaders think it could be helpful
Hello, I’m Tom Riley, and welcome back to The Fast Charge, a British EV newsletter.
The top story in today’s edition… I’m told the new Labour government may be considering ways of backing out of its manifesto pledge to restore the petrol ban to 2030 from 2035. All the details and comments from EV leaders below.
Elsewhere… Under pressure, SMMT started a public spat on LinkedIn against think tank New Automotive, and Elon Musk’s comments raised eyebrows in auto industry.
As ever, open door policy, if you have any thoughts, please do get in touch via my contact details below or reply to this email.
Labour mulls whether to restore UK petrol ban to 2030 - or push it into the long grass
Summary: According to numerous sources across the transport and energy sectors, I am told that the new Labour government is considering and being advised ways to defer bringing the petrol ban back forward to 2030 – which would break the commitment made in its election manifesto.
However… Here’s the intriguing part… Many senior figures in the green sector would prefer that to happen. Several have told me officials are exploring ways that could give Labour a way to ‘kick it into the long grass’. Before we dive in, as you’ll see below, a government spokesperson said these claims are “incorrect.” Let’s begin…
Background… Last year, on the back of a shock election win in Uxbridge thanks to criticism of an expanding ULEZ, the Conservative government decided that to shore up votes, they should shoe out its former net zero policies. One way the government pounced on this was with a ‘Plan for Drivers’. And, as part of it, Rishi Sunak announced he was pushing back the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035, to allow people more time to switch.
Obviously… Those of us who knew the real deal were aware that, in fact, the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate – which states how many EVs should be sold by carmakers up to 2035 – didn’t change with Sunak’s announcement. The only thing it created was a huge amount of negative media stories about EVs. As a result, investment in the EV sector cooled.
In response… Labour came out quickly committing to reverse Sunak’s decision - which many EV leaders say was too reactive.
Enter Bill Esterson MP… At the time, Bill was Labour’s Shadow Roads Minister. As businesses could see the tide turning to Starmer, Esterson was suddenly in high demand across the EV sector. And, at public events, he continued to state Labour would restore the 2030 date should they get into power.
Not agreed… Several industry leaders who dealt with Bill in opposition have not been overly positive about him. One said he “didn’t understand the basics” and another said he “p****ed people off”. When Labour included the pledge in its manifesto, it surprised many in the EV sector who thought they’d ignore it. Interestingly, perhaps in a clear display of the party’s annoyance, once achieving power, Esterson was removed from his post and sent to the backbenches for his “rogue” behaviour. Although, a source close to Labour told me “there were better people for the job”.
New broom… Esterson was replaced by Lillian Greenwood MP post-election. She had formerly been a Shadow Arts Minister, but over her 14 years as an MP, Lillian has been well-versed in transport. She previously completed spells as a Shadow Transport Minister, and recently chaired the Transport Select Committee from July 2017 to January 2020. One trade association told me they were happy with her appointment.
Anyway… that’s all small plates to the real meat of this story: why does Labour want to defer the pledge? And why are green leaders quite supportive?
Three reasons…
Neither Labour nor industry wants to relight the negative debate around net zero. Last year, it involved several national papers running campaigns against EVs. Labour is already super conscious that the net zero transition needs to be seen as “equitable” – I got told this is ‘word of the month’ amongst SpAds.
EVs are a sideshow to Labour’s immediate missions, such as clean energy by 2030. And it wants to make hay while the majority is high. As one industry source put it, they “can use political capital on better things”.
Labour’s political strategy at the moment revolves around ‘problems we’ve inherited from the Tories’. This is allowing Labour to make hard decisions while blaming their predecessors. In that context, as it stands right now, the 2035 internal combustion ban is a Conservative policy. As an EV leader said, “The moment they change anything, it becomes a Labour policy… it is no longer inherited.”
Obstacles ahead… Labour now faces the challenge of how to change their manifesto commitment in a way that doesn’t cause ridicule, risk investment, and won’t lead to new waves of climate protests. I’m led to believe officials are considering two options…
Behind door 1… After Summer, Labour could launch a new consultation on the ZEV mandate as a bit of ‘reset’ with industry. They already have some leeway to do this, as back in their 2023 automotive strategy, they wrote “Labour would design policy for the long-term, in partnership with business”. During a consultation period, the carmakers will no doubt tell them it’s not possible without subsidies – as they continue to do in the press – and green industries will tell them it makes no difference, though ‘changes on planning will help speed up projects’. Given the Treasury black hole, restricting incentive potential, Labour may use a consultation to change its tune and blame the Tories.
Behind door 2… One of the main calls from the green sector around EVs has been asking for more mythbusting – which the previous government did nothing to address. As far back as last year, there were talks of bringing back something like the old ‘Go Ultra Low’ campaign. I’m told that restarting a public campaign like this for consumers is possibly on the cards.
Or… is there another door? The government has said it will deliver on its promise and restore the date as promised. But, this would seem to ride against their other ambitions and what many in the industry desire as well…
Quentin Willson… Founder of the campaign FairCharge, believes Labour is right to be reticent in reinstating the 2030 phase out. “The date is purely totemic - a relic of Boris’s EV evangelism from a different time. It’s also meaningless given that the ZEV Mandate is already in place with 80% EV production mandated by 2030. And quite a few OEMs have declared that they will be full-electric before 2030 anyway.” Quentin adds: “Many of the green groups I’ve spoken to agree that reinstating 2030 would do more harm than good. I think it would be a mistake."
A source… from the EV charging industry was broadly aligned with this: “Whether the date is 2030 or 2035, the industry is in a good position.” Adding that: “In either date scenario we need the same things from government to keep going at this roll out pace – certainty around the date but also about the ZEV mandate, which remains a critical enabler of charge point investment, positivity about the transition in messaging to consumers, and barriers to rapid deployment and investment removed."
James Court… CEO of driver association EVA England agreed, telling me: "The damage of reversing has been done, and the negative messaging that came out of that needs to be reversed. We would welcome positive steps coming from the new government, such as increasing infrastructure."
And… if Labour does want to keep their pledge, Robin Heap, CEO and Founder of charging network Zest, said: “It needs to happen sooner rather than later.” He added: “While it’s understandable the change could stir up a difficult debate, the challenge at present is that 2035 is too distant in a consumer’s psyche that it has no meaningful implication during the vehicle selection and buying process.”
Elsewhere… A fellow network executive said they had “sympathy” with Labour not wanting to stoke further debate. They added: “It makes a massive difference having a PM and government that is pro-EV in their rhetoric and policy, rather than one saying that they are not going to force people to change. This is already beneficial. The real impact will be had by taking actions to support more people getting into EVs.”
The Department for Transport responded to this story saying: “These claims are incorrect. We are committed to phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, as per the manifesto commitment. We want to provide certainty to manufacturers and green our transport sector, and we will set out more details to deliver on our manifesto pledge in due course.”
Last word… The EV sector has faced much uncertainty in the past year. And, to its credit, it is still storming ahead. One thing though is now certain, Labour needs to reveal a proper plan or face more public questions.
Other stories…
Elon Musk… Has been making lots of outspoken comments about the UK and Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Could it hurt UK sales? Based on social media posts, his comments seem to be frustrating some owners. The real challenge for Tesla would come if dealers or leasing firms were to stop supplying vehicles though. However, while I understand his comments have been discussed at firms, this seems unlikely to change anything. As a spokesperson for leasing firm DriveElectric told me: “Tesla isn't Elon Musk and vice versa.” Adding that: “Tesla vehicles are popular for very good reasons, they're still at the forefront of electrifying personal mobility. They're still innovating more than any other carmaker when it comes to the promise of 'self driving' cars and the Supercharger network rollout is incredibly impressive.”
Talking of public spats… The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) this week publicly lashed out at the think tank New AutoMotive (NA). The latter had published statistics from DVLA suggesting the ZEV mandate could be achieved this year, while SMMT’s data and rhetoric are very different, suggesting much more is needed to meet it. In a LinkedIn post, Transport & Environment’s UK policy manager wrote NA’s numbers showed “there's no need for the taxpayer to support a thriving industry.”
SMMT commented under the post several times labelling the NA’s numbers “flawed”. This post has been shared widely by auto leaders who suggested this outburst comes as SMMT faces increasing pressure from its members for new subsidies. NA responded on the post, outlining their methodology and ended with, “We are always happy to chat to any organisation about what can be done to implement a fair & equitable EV transition so perhaps drop us a line next time before taking to social media? Have a nice day! 😃” Meoww!
By Tom Riley | Check my Linktree for LinkedIn, TikTok and Twitter
Thank you, always appreciate people reading! Absolutely, if we’re going to get people to switch, my own view is it would be better to have 10 years then go to EV when it works for them, rather than 5 and go for a hybrid (potentially adding many more years on before switching).
Re: SMMT and New AutoMotive. I believe NA is right. They use DVLA’s ‘actual’ registrations, whereas my understanding is SMMT get their numbers from carmakers/dealers, which can be more prone to fixing
Tom,
Great piece as always, thank you. Two quick questions: I think the last government may have weakened the ZEV targets by allowing the inclusion of hybrids and removing the minimum threshold for ZE mileage. Is this correct. If so, plugging this loophole will make the ZEV real, while also protecting consumers from over expensive and ineffectual hybrids, which at their worst are worse than a straight petrol car. Second, who is right in the New Automotive /SMMT spat? Thanks as always for the great reporting.