Baroness Coffey used third reading to express concerns about how easily ministers are saying that legislation "will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection" statements (as required by s20 of Environment Act 2021) when evidence is that they do. (eg statement below)

Figures from yougov.co.uk/topics/polit...

General election voting intention in May 2022 showed Labour on 54% compared to London borough election figure of 44%. Cons, LDs and Greens all did bit better in borough elections than their YouGov VI figure might have suggested.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan not exactly full of promise either on rail electrification (0.01 MtCO2e savings in the mid-2030s maybe...)

But HMT will drive this policy - if they do go through with it, it will be driven by what they can get away with politically as a minimum viable policy that is focused on revenue raising.
Given this, the ability to design a policy that serves wider public interests will be limited. (5/)

EV road pricing will be needed - there are still many external costs from cars even if they're electric (congestion, road danger, crowding out other modes, some air pollution). These will get worse if their running costs fall to next to nothing for those able to charge at home and who drive more (4/

Whether Government will be as committed to it a year before an election when most (52%) new cars will be required to be EVs remains to be seen, especially if economic growth picks up and income rises elsewhere.

HMT has been talking to stakeholders on EV road pricing for a while but without any clear option - now there is enough detail for the OBR to assess and a date for it to be introduced (2028) which may owe more to other changes in revenue and spending elsewhere. (2/)

The Government amendment above is their answer to Kate Parminter's amendment below.
Peers will also have some questions for the Minister on Monday on this amendment, eg by when will the regulations be made and come into force.

These are all the changes that the Lords made to the Bill tabled by opposition and crossbench peers, with Better Planning Coalition views on which should be kept or alternative ways for Government to address them.

The Lords did limit the controversial new environmental delivery plans to just four issues in an earlier amendment. The Commons will strip this out in their debate on the Bill next Thursday so this is one of the final issues to resolve if the Government want to get the Bill passed by Budget day.

..from community energy to housing projects, green spaces and local initiatives that bring people together. With the right support, these efforts can strengthen our health, wellbeing and democracy. Sign up to show your support! charterfordemocracy.org/about

Also worth looking at the lessons from Iceland in doing a similar policy where EV demand was suppressed. However, the timeline is later than Iceland allowing for more time for ZEV mandate to do its work in embedding EV take up

It does also seem like another example of a policy with major implications for non-HMT policy areas being introduced to try and keep the OBR happy about revenue forecasts several years down the line. Which may not be the best way to do long-term policy making...

Iceland's introduction of road pricing for EVs was not great for EV sales (sales figures for last year but latest figures are still down year on year - see newautomotive.substack.com/p/ev-buyers-...)

(By which I mean no-one in government)