An email arrived in my inbox the other day announcing the introduction of 17,000 new electric vehicle (EV) charge points across Hampshire. These are set to be installed in areas where charging at home - because there is no driveway or garage - is not an option.

This is welcome news. Recent RAC data suggest that around a third of Hampshire residents do not have off-street parking, which has long been one of the barriers to switching to an electric vehicle.

Improved charging infrastructure matters. So too does the fact that modern electric vehicles are now far more practical than many of the earlier models, with significantly improved battery range and reliability. If the UK is serious about reducing emissions and encouraging cleaner transport, making EV ownership easier and more accessible is clearly part of the answer.

However, there is a complication on the horizon.

From 2028, the Government is proposing to introduce a new Electric Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED), effectively a mileage-based charge for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

Under the proposals, EV drivers would pay around 3p per mile, while plug-in hybrid owners would pay roughly 1.5p per mile, in addition to standard vehicle excise duty. The Government argues that the measure is necessary because fuel duty revenues will decline sharply as more motorists move away from petrol and diesel.

The per-mile charge is not a new idea. It was being suggested by some back when I was Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury – and that’s a decade ago. I didn’t want to pursue it then, especially because of the effect there would be on rural areas.

It is not difficult to understand the financial logic. But there are legitimate concerns about how this policy could work in practice.

The first is fairness.

A flat pay-per-mile system does not distinguish between someone living in a city with extensive public transport options and someone in a rural area who has little choice but to drive considerable distances for work, hospital appointments, school or basic services.

Too often, national policies appear designed around urban living while overlooking the realities of rural communities. People living in the countryside already face higher transport costs simply because they must travel further. Introducing additional costs based purely on mileage risks disproportionately affecting those who have the fewest alternatives.

There is also a wider question about incentives.

The transition to electric vehicles still requires further public buy-in, and cost remains one of the biggest considerations. One of the attractions of EV ownership has been the lower running costs compared with petrol and diesel vehicles. Introducing a mileage-based charge risks weakening that incentive at precisely the moment when the Government says it wants more drivers to make the transition.

Critics have also raised concerns that this policy could become a stepping stone towards a broader national road pricing system. Memories remain of the public backlash in 2007, when more than a million people signed a Downing Street petition opposing road pricing proposals.

There is also the question of where the money raised would go.

Motorists are likely to ask whether revenue from any new EV charging scheme will be hypothecated, in other words, specifically directed towards maintaining and improving roads, or whether it will simply disappear into general Treasury spending. At a time when potholes remain one of the biggest issues for drivers (and a frequent topic at my public meetings), the Government will need convincing answers.