Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article presents fines of around £12,000 per non-compliant car as what drives discounting. It never says the rules include exemptions that let carmakers avoid fines even when they undershoot, such as selling more hybrids or making up lower sales later. Without this a reader believes discounting is the only way to escape a fixed penalty on every car.
We do not republish articles from Daily Express. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Express reports an exclusive warning from the SMMT that heavy discounting of new electric cars to meet ZEV mandate targets is not sustainable. Its headline attaches 'not sustainable' to new EVs rather than to the discounting Mike Hawes described. In small ways it also misstates how the mandate works: it calls the 2026 target a production share, implies hybrids are barred after 2030, and omits the exemptions that let carmakers avoid the fines it cites.
Headline goes beyond the article
Minor
“warning over new EVs - ‘not sustainable’”
Why this matters
The headline sets the quoted words ‘not sustainable’ directly against "new EVs", leaving out what Mike Hawes said was unsustainable.
The impression it gives
A reader of the headline alone believes the car industry chief has called new electric cars themselves unsustainable.
The context
In the body Hawes says the heavy discounting of new models is not sustainable, and he opens by saying electric vehicle sales are growing.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“That is not sustainable in the long term, for businesses or for car buyers faced with lower resale values.”
Elsewhere in the article“manufacturers are still relying heavily on discounts on brand new models”
The Express calls the warning "brutal" in its own voice.
The impression it gives
A reader expects a harsh or alarming verdict from the industry.
The context
Hawes's quoted words are measured: he calls for regulation that is ambitious but realistic and says sales are growing. Nothing in the piece supports "brutal".
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“We need regulation that’s ambitious, but realistic”
Misstates what the target measures
Minor
“a goal of 33% of cars produced fully electric in 2026”
Why this matters
The Express describes the 2026 target as a share of cars "produced".
The impression it gives
A reader believes the mandate sets a share of factory output.
The context
The target is a share of new car sales, as the reporter's own earlier article and other coverage of the same week state.
“would likely allow manufacturers to build plug-in hybrid models after the turn of the decade”
Why this matters
The Express says a change to the rules would allow hybrids after 2030.
The impression it gives
A reader believes hybrids are barred after 2030 under the current rules and that the change would newly permit them.
The context
The current regime already allows hybrids to make up the share of sales that is not zero emission until 2035. The reporter's own earlier article put the likely change as a relaxation of the number of plug-in hybrids.
The article presents fines of around £12,000 per non-compliant car as what drives discounting. It never says the rules include exemptions that let carmakers avoid fines even when they undershoot, such as selling more hybrids or making up lower sales later. Without this a reader believes discounting is the only way to escape a fixed penalty on every car.