
Government hasn't hit its own EV fleet targets despite pushing motorists to electric cars
The Government isn't meeting its own EV targets, despite pushing motorists towards electric cars by increasing taxes and running costs of hybrid, petrol and diesel.
It pledged to electrify 25 per cent of the central government car fleet by 2022.
In April the Government further pledged all central government cars and vans (except for the Prime Minister's gas-guzzling Range Rovers) will be zero emissions by the end of 2027.
But new research from WhatCar? reveals the Government is falling short of its targets to electrify its fleets, with only 15 per cent of its cars and vans being pure electric.
WhatCar? obtained information about 7,116 cars and vans operated by 21 central government departments via Freedom of Information requests, with the data received showing 22 per cent of cars are currently pure electric EVs and just 4 per cent of vans are, pulling down the overall total.
The figures suggest many government fleets have so far switched to lower-emission vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids and hybrids, with 22 per cent plug-in hybrids and one per cent hybrids across the fleet.
That leaves 3 per cent of vehicles powered by petrol and 59 per cent fuelled by diesel.
Motorists are being actively pushed into fully-electric cars rather than hybrids after the Treasury massively hiked the cost of owning and running a hybrid car two months ago in order to hit targets to phase out the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
The Government has given its fleets the opportunity to apply for exemption – which had to be filed by 31 May - for certain vehicles from going electric due to security and other reasons. These will be confirmed by 31 July.
However, the WhatCar? figures already take into account vehicles that are likely to gain exemption from the EV commitment because it only includes cars and vans weighing up to 3,500kg.
Across the central government fleet results, 35 per cent of cars are PHEVs, but there are zero plug-in hybrid vans. In fact, 96 per cent of vans are diesel.
And the detailed results clearly show that some central government fleets are doing better than others at going green, with the DVLA responding 88 per cent of its cars and 67 per cent of its vans are electric.
The DVSA on the other hand has only 11 per cent electric cars, and no pure electric vans.
All of National Highways' 10 vans are electric, and while only 15 per cent of its cars are EVs, 84 per cent are PHEVs and just two per cent are diesels which marks it out as a better performing fleet.
Comparatively the Ministry of Justice has 16 per cent EVs, but the majority are hybrid or PHEV: 44 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. 1,189 of its vans are diesel, as are 19 per cent of its cars.
Border Force, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office didn't respond or provide enough information to be included, and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities and the Wales office have no vehicles.
National Highways recently took a delivery of 91 Toyota bZ4X electric SUVs. These only make up a fraction of this government department's 1,300 fleet of vehicles
The failure to hit its own EV targets comes after the Chancellor's Spring Budget hikes in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) road tax for plug-in hybrids and hybrids of up to 1,000 per cent.
On 1 April the first-year VED rate for cars emitting 1-50g/km of CO2 rose from £10 to £110, while cars emitting 51-75g/km of CO2 went from paying £30 to £130. Many plug-in hybrids and self-charging hybrids fall into these brackets.
But others, like the Toyota Yaris hybrid fall into even higher CO2 categories; the 76-90g/km and 91-100 g/km categories.
The lowest first-year VED rate for petrols and diesel with emissions of 76-90g/km shot up from £135 to £270.
But the Yaris hybrid puts out 91g/km CO2 at least and so owners are having to pay £330 now in road tax compared to £165 before 1 April.
Experts have labelled it a 'shove, not a nudge' towards EV uptake.
INCREASE IN VED FIRST-YEAR 'SHOWROOM TAX' RATES FOR NEW CARS FROM 1 APRIL 2025
CO2 (g/km) Petrol & diesel cars now Petrol & diesel cars from 1 April 2025 Alternative fuel (self-charging and plug-in hybrid) cars now Alternative fuel (self-charging and plug-in hybrid) cars from 1 April 2025
0 £0 £10 £0 £10
0 50 10 £110 £0 £110
51 75 £30 £130 £20 £130
76 90 £135 £270 £125 £250
91 100 £175 £350 £165 £330
101 110 £195 £390 £185 £370
111 130 £220 £440 £210 £420
131 150 £270 £540 £260 £520
151 170 £680 £1,360 £670 £1,340
171 190 £1,095 £2,190 £1,085 £2,170
191 255 £1,650 £3,300 £1,640 £3,280
226 255 £2,340 £4,680 £2,330 £4,660
Over 255 £2,745 £5,490 £2,735 £5,490
It's not just VED rates that are forcing people to go electric; company car tax changes – the rates for PHEVs will go up at a rate of 1 per cent increase for each year for the next three financial years – and other fees such as the increase congestion charge for PHEVs to £15 in 2021 have made hybrids far less appealing proposition for drivers.
WhatCar? says it believes it is 'completely wrong' the Government is 'not cleaning up its own fleet at the same time it is penalising ordinary drivers for not going electric by slapping higher taxes on low-emission alternative vehicles'.
Industry figures have also been unimpressed with the Government's lack of incentives, as grants for early adopters have long ended, and EV owners are now liable for VED levies as well as the expensive car supplement on EVs costing more than £40,000.
Defra began its electric vehicle transition back in 2011 when the Environment Agency took on its first full electric car, the Mitsubishi i-Miev. In 2024 over half of EA's fleet of 2,500 cars are full electric, while 214 of its 1,562 vans are also zero emission
Buyers of new EVs over this threshold are having to cough up an extra £425 on top of VED hikes for going electric.
This has been so unpopular that a leaked letter from the Minister for the Future of Roads, Lilian Greenwood, suggested the Government could increase the threshold from £40,000 to £50,000 to offer a respite and help drive uptake.
While this was described as 'move in the right direction' it is not enough to improve consumer confidence, with WhatCar? backing calls for better financial incentives, such as halving the VAT on new EVs, and reduced VAT on public EV charging costs, to make it easier and more appealing for motorists to switch to EVs.
This is Money has contacted the Department for Transport for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Powys County Times
23 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
A Palestinian human rights group will discover on Monday whether it has won a legal challenge against the Government over decisions related to exports of military equipment to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision.

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed demonstrators before the hearing began (Ben Whitley/PA) At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.