Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

I realise there are a lot of questions there. I am sure the Minister will not be able to answer all of them here, but I would be grateful if he could in due course write to me about those issues that he is not able to answer now.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the global shift towards zero-emission vehicles presents opportunities and challenges here in the UK. The automotive industry will be at the forefront of each of them, and it will need the support and engagement of the Government to address the challenges and maximise the opportunities. I am therefore pleased that Ministers are turning their attention to new incentive schemes to encourage the production and sale of new ZEVs, and we will not oppose this instrument.

The commitment to ending new sales of ZEVs by 2035 is fast approaching and schemes such as this will play a vital part. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister can provide clarity on a couple of points. First, given that the UK is no longer part of the EU new car and van emissions regulatory framework, how does this compare with similar systems internationally? Secondly, will the Minister explain how many special-purpose vehicles will be exempt?

In the consultation section of the Explanatory Memorandum there is a reference to the Climate Change Committee’s contribution. I am a great fan of that committee and, although this is not personal, the quality of the Government’s decision-making over the recent past leaves me with some discomfort in taking their statements for granted. The Climate Change Committee, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has established an excellent reputation for carefully thought-out positions, and I therefore wonder why the letter referred to in paragraph 10.2 has not been responded to. There is every possibility, given the volume of paperwork on this, that it has been and I have missed it. Has it been responded to? If not, why not? If it was, why is that not in the EM?

The letter is important. As a generality it is quite supportive, but it makes two important points. Since it is better than my speech, I will read from it. The first point is this:

“The mandate will provide clarity for manufacturers, businesses and motorists on the direction of the UK market and the rate of change required. To build on this and demonstrate consistency to the market, we recommend that your department”—


that is, the Department for Transport—

“also sets targets for the period from 2030-2035, making sure these are ambitious enough to minimise the impact of continuing petrol and diesel vehicle sales on UK emissions”.

A theme that has come from the industry over the last decade is that it wants consistency, as far into the future as possible. The committee makes the good point that the period needs to be stuck on to the end of this instrument somehow so that the industry can plan right through that period.

The committee’s second point is this:

“Another critical element of the proposed legislation are the efficiency standards for new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles which will continue to be sold until 2035. Typical new cars remain on the road for around 14 years. Therefore, ICE and hybrid vehicles that continue to be sold alongside the mandate will continue producing emissions for a considerable period. We are concerned that the regulations proposed for this portion of the market, which would require that the average emissions of each manufacturer’s new non-zero-emission car and van sales remain constant at 2021 levels each year, are insufficiently ambitious to deliver the emissions savings required to meet the UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCCC”—


I looked that up, and it is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—

“and the Sixth Carbon Budget. Our calculations”—

and I have faith in the committee’s calculations—

“show that this policy of maintaining flat emissions intensities will reduce emissions savings by around 3 MtCO₂e per year by 2030 compared to my Committee’s Net Zero Pathway”.

I hope the Government will reconsider this element, because I find both arguments convincing and significant.