Resolution Statement – 05954-24 Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “New hybrid cars will remain on market despite 2030 ban pledge”, published on 16 September 2024.

2. The article reported on hybrid cars and the future ban on the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars. It said:

 “Sir Keir Starmer committed Labour in its manifesto to scrapping the sale of ‘new cars with internal combustion engines’ by 2030 as part of his plans to hit net zero by 2050. This led to concerns in the car industry that new hybrids, which use both petrol and diesel engines in conjunction with a battery, such as Nissan’s bestselling Qashqai, could be hit by the ban. Officials have now clarified that ‘some’ hybrid vehicles will continue to be sold between 2030 and 2035 after a report in The Sunday Telegraph. Concerns about battery range and the availability of charging points have led to a fall in demand.”

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline: “New hybrids can stay on the market after 2030 petrol car ban”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that demand for electric vehicles was not falling, but rising. The complainant provided sales data from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) available at the time of the article’s publication to support its position. The complainant said the data showed that electric vehicles (EV) sales in August 2024 were 10.8% higher compared to August 2023, and that new EV sales in 2024 so far were 10.5% higher compared to the same period in 2023. The complainant acknowledged that the reference to a “fall in demand” might have referred to hybrid vehicle sales; however, it said this was unlikely and that demand for hybrids was also rising overall.

5. The complainant contacted the journalist directly with a suggested correction on 16 September. It then contacted the publication on 17 September and 15 October. It did not receive a response to these emails.

6. During the IPSO process, the publication said it did not accept the article breached Clause 1. It said sales and demand are not synonymous, and no successful business model assumed they were: demand corresponded to wants, while sales corresponded to needs. It also said that the article was not an analysis of motor industry sales, but a discussion of political policy and consumer demand, and that an ordinary reader would understand the term “demand” in this context.

7. The publication noted that the article reported on the government’s decision to allow the sale of hybrid vehicles until 2035, despite its manifesto commitment to stop the sale of “new cars with internal combustion engines” beyond 2030. It said the reference to a “fall in demand” helped to account for the apparent inconsistency in government policy.

8. The publication also said that the Cambridge English Dictionary defined demand in an economic context as “a need for something to be sold or supplied”. It also said that Collins Dictionary defined it as: “willingness and ability to purchase goods and services” and “the amount of a commodity that consumers are willing and able to purchase at a specified price”. It said, therefore, that the reference did not refer to motor industry sales figures, but to a fall in enthusiasm for electric vehicles among potential buyers. It said this illustrated the government’s willingness to depart from its stated manifesto policy. The publication provided various examples of analysis on the sale and demand for EVs and hybrids which appeared on car news sites - which it said supported its position.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator. 

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Mediated Outcome

9. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

10. During IPSO’s investigation the complainant suggested the reference under complaint in the online article be amended to: “Concerns about range and the availability of charging points have led to a perceived fall in demand, in spite of rising EV sales”. It said this should be published in addition to a correction clarifying that, despite a perceived fall in demand for EVs, sales of EVs in the UK are rising.

11. The publication agreed to amend the article in the manner suggested by the complainant, and added the following footnote clarification to the online article: “UPDATE: This article was amended on 12 December 2024 to make clear that sales of electric vehicles have been rising.”

12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to its satisfaction.

 13. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 22/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/12/2024