Editor’s letter: 2030 ban debate adds 'confusion to chaos'

Less than three months ago on a visit to his Vauxhall van factory in Luton, Stellantis chief Carlos Tavares urged government legislators to set stable regulations for the automotive industry and not add “confusion to chaos” with constant flip-flopping. It’s those words that have been ringing in my ear with the government’s will-they-won’t-they indecision over the 2030 ban on the sale of internal-combustion-engined cars, which has emerged in the fallout of the Conservatives’ surprise byelection win in Boris Johnson’s old Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency. That win was seen as a revolt against plans from London’s Labour mayor Sadiq Khan to expand the ULEZ zone, which probably conflates two similar but still distinct issues, yet the inference taken and message delivered by Tory heavyweights has been clear. “Green policies are very unpopular when there’s a direct cost to people – as indeed all the polling says,” said Lord Frost on Twitter (sorry, X). Sensing a popularity contest to be won, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak has taken the bait and refused to rule out a change to the legislation. His own ministers – Michael Gove included – have kept to the original party line, though, that the policy remains. READ MORE: Government considers easing impact of 2030 ICE ban What do we have at the end of it all? Confusion and chaos. If the policy stays, consumer confidence in electric cars will likely have been dented, and given the ambitious nature of the government’s target (2035 is the date in Europe), this will be a blow to those efforts. If the policy goes, it’s already too late for the industry to react. The EV investments have been made and the likes of the Ford Fiesta have already left the forecourts for good and won’t be coming back, replaced by the battery-electric vehicles the government called on car makers to create. Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) boss Adrian Mardell is the first car company boss to speak publicly on this, but you can likely copy and paste his sentiment to what others will say. “The reality is the plans [for EVs] were set more than two years ago and the plans will stay the same even if conversations are going on [about changing the 2030 date].” As Lord Frost notes, at the heart of this all is an affordability issue. Cars have become ever more expensive due to the legislative requirements placed upon them with emissions and active safety regulations, costs driven up further by raw material prices and supply chain issues. Mandating them all as EVs drives up that cost further because car makers must invest not only in the cars of today but also in that future technology and facilities to build them. No wonder cars have become so expensive. The SMMT recently published a sensible, pragmatic manifesto around a future electrified automotive industry in the UK with the aim that it would be adopted by all parties to ensure that the regulatory framework remains stable for a huge industrial and consumer shift that will happen towards electric vehicles, even with a change in government. Quite the opposite seems to have happened: political parties sense votes to be won and an election issue to fight on. Perhaps a concession around 2030 can still be found. Hybrids with a ‘meaningful range’ will be allowed to stay on sale until 2035 even after the ban on pure-ICE vehicles in 2030. That range has never been defined, so it could well be tweaked to include milder hybrids. This is something that would be a fillip to Toyota in particular, a big UK producer of hybrids but still silent on its future manufacturing plans in the UK for its next generation of models. The result would mean the government is able to stick to its 2030 headline while also allowing a key concession with a greater range of more affordable models able to stay on sale until 2035, easing the transition to EVs in the process and perhaps convincing Toyota to stay here, too.