Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023 Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebatePeter Gibson
Main Page: Peter Gibson (Conservative - Darlington)Department Debates - View all Peter Gibson's debates with the Department for Transport
(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesGood morning, and thank you very much, Mrs Murray.
Labour supports the introduction of the ZEV mandate. The Minister said much that I can completely agree with. Decarbonising cars and vans is an absolute priority in delivering net zero, as he reiterated throughout his remarks. He set out extremely well the opportunities for the industry in this country. However, there are significant challenges, sadly, of the Government’s own making. I understand that there are problems in the Conservative party with this subject.
I will look at how the ZEV mandate, which we support, can be best rolled out and how the incentives can be used to deliver the agenda that the Minister set out. The confirmation that 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans will be zero emission by 2030 moves the UK towards net zero in cars and vans—that is true. However, the question we should address is how to balance the supply of vehicles, which the mandate sets to manufacturers, with demand from consumers. That is why what the Prime Minister said in September, and the way his party conference speech was trailed in advance again and again, caused so many problems. The change in date from 2030 to 2035 has created a problem for consumer confidence. We therefore support the end of new sales of petrol and diesel cars in 2030, not 2035. In Government, if we are given the responsibility in the coming year, we will revert to 2030 to emphasise the importance of taking the earliest possible steps to decarbonise.
The Prime Minister announced the change in date. After 2030, the remaining 20% in the mandate includes petrol, diesel and hybrids whereas it previously covered only hybrids. However, the problem is that consumers heard, “Don’t worry; you don’t have to switch”. That leaves manufacturers that have already made sizeable investments—the Minister set out the commitment of the industry very well—in zero-emission vehicles with the serious concern that drivers will not buy their electric vehicles because the Prime Minister told them not to worry.
On Monday, Baroness Young spoke to the Lords about the greater environmental awareness of young people and their pester power with parents. In the environment Select Committee, she said that she had asked some whether they were using that pester power to persuade their parents to adopt electric vehicles. What she heard back she described as a bit “shattering”. They had replied:
“There is no point in us trying to influence our parents on this because the Government have just said to them, by slipping the date, ‘Don’t worry, there is no rush. You don’t need to do it now—you can take all the time you like’”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2023; Vol. 834, c. 994.]
In a nutshell, that is our problem: we have this gap between supply and demand.
It took the Government some time to come up with an excuse for why the Prime Minister had delayed the date. That was made by the Transport Secretary, and I do not disagree with the analysis that hybrids are higher-emitting vehicles than had previously been publicly announced—although that had been obvious for some years before that, because of the way people tend to drive them—but it was after the fact. It took the Government some time to consider that the Prime Minister’s announcement had had a chilling effect on consumer and industry confidence.
Let us look at some of what industry said. Emma Pinchbeck, the chief executive officer of Energy UK, said of the net zero roll-backs:
“I just came out of a meeting where a chunk of the British economy was assured by ministers that net zero was a top priority and that policy stability was crucial for investors. Now this.”
The Climate Change Committee stated:
“The cancellation of some Net Zero measures is likely to increase both energy bills and motoring costs for households…any undermining of their roll-out will ultimately increase costs”—
that is electric vehicle roll-out. Meanwhile, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that drivers could face £6 billion in extra costs up to 2035.
The lifetime costs of EVs are already cheaper than those of petrol and diesel cars. By 2030, the up-front costs of EVs were forecast to be at parity with petrol or diesel cars. By delaying, the concern is that the Government are not lowering but raising costs for families.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what I think I heard him say, which was that if Labour secured a victory at the next general election, it would revert to 2030? Is that correct?
That is exactly what we will do. We have been saying it since the Prime Minister announced the delay, so it should come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman—