Is there really joined-up thinking from those in charge when it comes to the transition to EVs? Our editor-at-large has his doubts.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes “significant” as being “large or important enough to have an effect or be noticed”. It’s a word that slipped into the UK’s electric vehicle transition back in 2018, vaguely dictating a benchmark level of zero-emission capability required of new cars and vans by 2040. Four new prime ministers, a global pandemic and a cost-of-living crisis later, and subsequent communications and debates are only consistent in their inability to discuss those deadlines clearly.

It’s probably helpful to give a brief history lesson here. Theresa May’s government set out plans to end the sale of “conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans” by 2040 as part of 2017’s Air Quality Plan, before re-wording the threshold as “significant zero-emission capability” in 2018’s Road to Zero document. Boris Johnson adopted the latter in 2020, but with a much earlier deadline – 2030 for “significant” capability (i.e. hybrids) and 2035 for “fully zero-emission at the tailpipe” (i.e. electric or hydrogen fuel cell).

Back then, the industry was already asking questions. I remember sitting at a conference in 2018 with a carmaker representative repeatedly asking a DfT spokesperson to define what “significant” meant – would plug-in hybrids be the baseline, or would regular hybrids be allowed too? Meanwhile, the public were faced with headlines and pundits referencing Johnson’s pledge to “end [the] sale of new petrol and diesel cars [and vans]” by 2030. I’m not surprised this was interpreted as a date for all new registrations to be battery electric.

However, I was surprised to see that ambiguity form the basis of Rishi Sunak’s “more pragmatic” approach to net zero in September 2023. Consumers shouldn’t, he said, be “forced” to buy electric vehicles with a higher upfront cost, limited range and underdeveloped charging network, adding that petrol and diesel cars and vans would be available between 2030 and 2035. This line got a lot of airtime, with EV advocates outraged at the softened deadlines – and the naysayers arguing that it reflected a technology that wasn’t ready for the mass market.

It’s a case study in appalling comms, because Sunak didn’t relax the EV deadlines at all. By 2030, the ZEV mandate requires 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans to be zero-emission at the tailpipe. Those targets will rise annually – reaching 100% by 2035 – and they haven’t been adjusted. Instead of being outraged, the advocates should have highlighted that the Government’s EV deadlines were intact, while opponents had a golden opportunity to claim the Government was forcing immature technology on the masses. Is it any wonder consumers are confused?

Unfortunately, I don’t see much change under Labour. Having made the 2030 deadlines an election talking point (for reasons that escape me, as it affects <20% of new cars and <30% of vans), the word “significant” was retired for good in April 2025. The new government is “allowing hybrid cars” to be sold between 2030 and 2035 to help “ease the transition” to EVs. It’s a useful clarification, but nobody has ever suggested phasing out hybrid cars (or vans) until at least 2035.

And that’s before you get me started on the two examples that will be available between 2030 and 2035 – a Toyota Prius (which is a PHEV) and a Nissan e-Power (a hybrid powertrain, not a car). In an announcement titled “Backing British Business”, two British-built hybrids – the Toyota Corolla and Nissan Qashqai e-Power – seem like obvious candidates.

Perhaps I’m biased as a professional wordsmith but clarity and consistency are critical when you’re spearheading a massive change such as this. It would be a significant improvement for everyone involved if the discussion-leaders could get that right.